After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky(thecable.foreignpolicy.com)
thecable.foreignpolicy.com
After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/13/after_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky
21 comments
As a lay reader who has worked in Government, this isn't about assumptions, it's about how bureaucracies work.
Theoharis is interviewed because he is a lifelong expert on FBI-CIA cooperation. Presumably this is worth something. His argument is that if a letter goes from CIA to FBI or vice versa regarding "NOAM CHOMSKY" then this means that at minimum there is a file labelled "NOAM CHOMSKY" containing this memo at both the CIA and the FBI. Therefore when the CIA said nothing was found under FOIA requests for a file on Noam Chomsky either (a) this was a lie or (b) the file was illegally destroyed.
Based on my own experience working in government offices, this is a pretty sound argument. If a letter is sent from X to Y about Z, then there has to be a file on Z to put the letter into (both at the sender's and receiver's ends). If the file doesn't exist, it will be created just to hold that letter.
Theoharis is interviewed because he is a lifelong expert on FBI-CIA cooperation. Presumably this is worth something. His argument is that if a letter goes from CIA to FBI or vice versa regarding "NOAM CHOMSKY" then this means that at minimum there is a file labelled "NOAM CHOMSKY" containing this memo at both the CIA and the FBI. Therefore when the CIA said nothing was found under FOIA requests for a file on Noam Chomsky either (a) this was a lie or (b) the file was illegally destroyed.
Based on my own experience working in government offices, this is a pretty sound argument. If a letter is sent from X to Y about Z, then there has to be a file on Z to put the letter into (both at the sender's and receiver's ends). If the file doesn't exist, it will be created just to hold that letter.
Even if what you claim is true, it still backs my point that some more explanation is needed on why those conclusions can be drawn.
Regarding the argument itself, was the memo really "regarding" Noam Chomsky? It reads to me like it's about some other people traveling to Vietnam, and the "with the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Cora Weiss" is the only mention of him. Is it your claim that the mere mentioning of a person by name in a CIA memo means that there's a file on that person? Is there a copy of that memo in the files of all 8 people mentioned by name? If so, this expert should say that because it's relevant and interesting.
Regarding the argument itself, was the memo really "regarding" Noam Chomsky? It reads to me like it's about some other people traveling to Vietnam, and the "with the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Cora Weiss" is the only mention of him. Is it your claim that the mere mentioning of a person by name in a CIA memo means that there's a file on that person? Is there a copy of that memo in the files of all 8 people mentioned by name? If so, this expert should say that because it's relevant and interesting.
This is "large bureaucracy 101" and shouldn't need explaining:
1) The letter means the files existed. 2) The government said the files didn't exist. 3) The government lied (illegal) OR destroyed the files (illegal).
QED.
1) The letter means the files existed. 2) The government said the files didn't exist. 3) The government lied (illegal) OR destroyed the files (illegal).
QED.
(1) is the part that I don't just assume is always true.
The "there's are names in a memo" => "there's a file on every person named" logic is something that, if true, would be nice to back up just a little, at least state why that's true for the CIA beyond saying it's true of all bureaucracies. (And I too have I've worked in large bureaucracies, including the government/military and with classified material)
Your argument seems to be that since the CIA is a large bureaucracy, that they have this hypertext-like system of filing copies of all documents in every file associated with terms in the document. I don't doubt that they _now_ have a system like this - they'd be silly not to. But in the 70's? That's, like I said, interesting and relevant if true. And it'd be nice to at least have the expert say "Yes, this is how the CIA managed documents in the 70's based on (CIA statements | my investigations | interviews | etc)."
I'm not saying that the CIA didn't have a file on Chomsky, it would surprise me if they didn't, but that jump from mention to file deserves a little more treatment.
The "there's are names in a memo" => "there's a file on every person named" logic is something that, if true, would be nice to back up just a little, at least state why that's true for the CIA beyond saying it's true of all bureaucracies. (And I too have I've worked in large bureaucracies, including the government/military and with classified material)
Your argument seems to be that since the CIA is a large bureaucracy, that they have this hypertext-like system of filing copies of all documents in every file associated with terms in the document. I don't doubt that they _now_ have a system like this - they'd be silly not to. But in the 70's? That's, like I said, interesting and relevant if true. And it'd be nice to at least have the expert say "Yes, this is how the CIA managed documents in the 70's based on (CIA statements | my investigations | interviews | etc)."
I'm not saying that the CIA didn't have a file on Chomsky, it would surprise me if they didn't, but that jump from mention to file deserves a little more treatment.
My experience of bureaucracies dates back to the mid 80s when nothing much was (in Australia) computerized. I'm not talking about a "hypertext-like system of filing" but a physical room full of hanging folders with unique numbers and index cards. (You've seen images of the -- newly added! -- file compactuses* at the Department of Veterans' Affairs -- like that.)
* Not a typo: compactus is a specific piece of furniture.
If a letter primarily concerning X gets sent, a copy of it is retained in the file on X, and the receiver puts the item in another file on X. If necessary, multiple copies are retained and placed in multiple files (e.g. the letter also concerns Y so photocopy it and insert it in files on Y).
Each page in a file is numbered (this is called a "folio number") and the file's folder is amended to show the new inserts and increased folio count. It's hard in such a system to lose a page and very hard to erase evidence of its prior existence.
Typically, multiple index cards (e.g. "Chomsky, Noam -- file 12345") will get created for each file, and inventory will be taken of all files, folios, and index cards on a regular basis. Destroying a file or folio creates visible gaps and broken references, so it's actually a pretty robust system. Yes indeed, this is how this crap worked before computers.
* Not a typo: compactus is a specific piece of furniture.
If a letter primarily concerning X gets sent, a copy of it is retained in the file on X, and the receiver puts the item in another file on X. If necessary, multiple copies are retained and placed in multiple files (e.g. the letter also concerns Y so photocopy it and insert it in files on Y).
Each page in a file is numbered (this is called a "folio number") and the file's folder is amended to show the new inserts and increased folio count. It's hard in such a system to lose a page and very hard to erase evidence of its prior existence.
Typically, multiple index cards (e.g. "Chomsky, Noam -- file 12345") will get created for each file, and inventory will be taken of all files, folios, and index cards on a regular basis. Destroying a file or folio creates visible gaps and broken references, so it's actually a pretty robust system. Yes indeed, this is how this crap worked before computers.
Your breakdown is not what the article says.
They didn't find some random memo that merely mentioned Chomsky.
They found a memo from CIA to the FBI, requesting to provide more information on people and actions related to an event, with the justification that the event was "endorsed by Chomsky" (as if he was someone dangerous whom you should watch carefully the groups and events he endorses).
I'd rather trust the "expert on CIA/FBI" that a random comment that mis-represents the article so badly.
(Well, beside the obvious that of course they had a file on Chomsky, that's what they do, and people like Chomsky is who they target. If not the CIA, the FBI sure did, and CIA had them do work for them and took peeks. Heck, they had huge files on people like John Lennon and MLK).
They didn't find some random memo that merely mentioned Chomsky.
They found a memo from CIA to the FBI, requesting to provide more information on people and actions related to an event, with the justification that the event was "endorsed by Chomsky" (as if he was someone dangerous whom you should watch carefully the groups and events he endorses).
I'd rather trust the "expert on CIA/FBI" that a random comment that mis-represents the article so badly.
(Well, beside the obvious that of course they had a file on Chomsky, that's what they do, and people like Chomsky is who they target. If not the CIA, the FBI sure did, and CIA had them do work for them and took peeks. Heck, they had huge files on people like John Lennon and MLK).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think everyone interested in American politics needs to read some of Chomsky's work. I don't agree with everything he says. It is important to hear and consider all sides of every argument. In general terms, yes, I believe we've made a mess out of foreign relations for a long time. Not sure I'd go as far as calling us terrorists. I can absolutely see how big brother would want to keep him and other under watch.
EDII: My problem with such figures is that universities put them up on pedestals and don't necessarily go out of their way to present contrasting viewpoints on the same stage, at the same time and to the same audience. The young and the impressionable swallow this stuff up without much thought and observation because they are led to idolize such figures. This results in intransigence and extreme positions without thought later in life. In other words, they are handing people fish rather than teaching them to fish.
EDII: My problem with such figures is that universities put them up on pedestals and don't necessarily go out of their way to present contrasting viewpoints on the same stage, at the same time and to the same audience. The young and the impressionable swallow this stuff up without much thought and observation because they are led to idolize such figures. This results in intransigence and extreme positions without thought later in life. In other words, they are handing people fish rather than teaching them to fish.
I'd be interested in hearing what you disagree with Chomsky .. in my opinion he is one of the most enlightened American academics we have right now, and I personally wish more Americans were exposed to his point of view - it would certainly calm a lot of fires if the average American realized the true, human, cost of their empire.
As far as calling Americans terrorists- how else would you describe the 80+ military actions that America has taken, in the name of its people, since the end of WW2? I mean, policing the world is one thing; bombing certain cultures to absolute oblivion is another thing entirely. What could it be rather than the mass export of terror to the non-militarized world, when American drones act with impunity, American agents operate undeterred in foreign governments, and so on? I think that anyone 'disagreeing' that America engages in terrorism clearly needs to take another renewed look at the situation .. America is most definitely one of the most terrible nations on the planet, in terms of its value of human life. I say this with sincerity, and I do truly believe that America has a lot of positives; however, they are far, far outweighed by the negative impact on humanity that the American people have, and continue to have daily, on the world at large. Every single drone strike is a crime.
As far as calling Americans terrorists- how else would you describe the 80+ military actions that America has taken, in the name of its people, since the end of WW2? I mean, policing the world is one thing; bombing certain cultures to absolute oblivion is another thing entirely. What could it be rather than the mass export of terror to the non-militarized world, when American drones act with impunity, American agents operate undeterred in foreign governments, and so on? I think that anyone 'disagreeing' that America engages in terrorism clearly needs to take another renewed look at the situation .. America is most definitely one of the most terrible nations on the planet, in terms of its value of human life. I say this with sincerity, and I do truly believe that America has a lot of positives; however, they are far, far outweighed by the negative impact on humanity that the American people have, and continue to have daily, on the world at large. Every single drone strike is a crime.
Where do I disagree? He is too extreme. Things are never that black and white. He, nor you or I have all of the information surrounding the events of the last fifty or one-hundred years of international politics and conflict be able to hold such extreme positions.
Have people behaved badly? Absolutely. You can go back a thousand years and still make that claim. You can go back three thousand years and still make that claim. The problem isn't a specific people, the problem is the human proclivity for devolving into behaving badly. I don't quite understand how we are going to fix that.
Chomsky himself says very clearly that none of this is abnormal. Any power has historically behaved this way. If the arab world was as powerful as the US they'd most-certainly behave worst. Look at how they treat half their population, in the form of women. Not justifying any of it. Simply stating that this is about the human condition. Ultimately that is what needs to be addressed.
The US might be irrelevant in another hundred years, maybe even less. The next super power (China?) will, with time, probably behave in an equivalent fashion. Chomsky says that this always happens, and he is right. If China where in our position and they had been attacked 9/11-style there's no doubt in my mind that they would have nuked half the arab world out of existence. At least Bush had enough self-restraint not to do that. Not that I'm a fan.
Have people behaved badly? Absolutely. You can go back a thousand years and still make that claim. You can go back three thousand years and still make that claim. The problem isn't a specific people, the problem is the human proclivity for devolving into behaving badly. I don't quite understand how we are going to fix that.
Chomsky himself says very clearly that none of this is abnormal. Any power has historically behaved this way. If the arab world was as powerful as the US they'd most-certainly behave worst. Look at how they treat half their population, in the form of women. Not justifying any of it. Simply stating that this is about the human condition. Ultimately that is what needs to be addressed.
The US might be irrelevant in another hundred years, maybe even less. The next super power (China?) will, with time, probably behave in an equivalent fashion. Chomsky says that this always happens, and he is right. If China where in our position and they had been attacked 9/11-style there's no doubt in my mind that they would have nuked half the arab world out of existence. At least Bush had enough self-restraint not to do that. Not that I'm a fan.
> The next super power (China?) will, with time, probably behave in an equivalent fashion.
And no doubt when they do, you'll be at the forefront defending them? Re-read your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs as a defence of China as a world power. Do you still stand by them?
And no doubt when they do, you'll be at the forefront defending them? Re-read your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs as a defence of China as a world power. Do you still stand by them?
> And no doubt when they do, you'll be at the forefront defending them? Re-read your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs as a defence of China as a world power. Do you still stand by them?
I don't quite understand how you read what s/he said as a defense of the US' behavior or the putative future behavior of China. An acknowledgment that people in power behave like assholes, sure, but it's in the overall context of criticizing Chomsky's political writings as being somewhat simplistic in how they handle the ethics of power politics. Or perhaps you believe that the black and white view of things is the right and proper one, and failing to adopt it is equivalent to apologizing for misdeeds by those in power.
I don't quite understand how you read what s/he said as a defense of the US' behavior or the putative future behavior of China. An acknowledgment that people in power behave like assholes, sure, but it's in the overall context of criticizing Chomsky's political writings as being somewhat simplistic in how they handle the ethics of power politics. Or perhaps you believe that the black and white view of things is the right and proper one, and failing to adopt it is equivalent to apologizing for misdeeds by those in power.
Oh perhaps. Perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough to appreciate the diplomatic nuances of "China would be just as bad, and the arabs would be worse"(paraphrase)
Reads like excusing US behaviour to me.
Reads like excusing US behaviour to me.
[deleted]
I don't see how America isn't a terrorist state at this point - they are murdering people in cold blood in Pakistan without trial because Obama/NSA/CIA/etc. say it's a good thing. This is the definition of a terrorist in my book - thinking you operate outside the law and taking actions into your own hands like some mad vigilante, as opposed to working with the Pakistani government to resolve issues you have by handing over evidence.
There is no Pakistani government control over those regions. Osama was hiding under their nose for how long?
> There is no Pakistani government control over those regions. Osama was hiding under their nose for how long?
I find it somewhat implausible that at least some people in the Pakistani power structure (intelligence or military) were unaware of his presence. He'd been at the mansion for about 5 years and was located under a mile from the Pakistani military academy in a town lousy with retired military officers.
I find it somewhat implausible that at least some people in the Pakistani power structure (intelligence or military) were unaware of his presence. He'd been at the mansion for about 5 years and was located under a mile from the Pakistani military academy in a town lousy with retired military officers.
I am not going to argue these facts because it is very difficult to do so without all of the relevant data in hand. The fact that someone like Bin Laden was actually being sheltered by Pakistan does not give that country much to stand on.
The key question here might be more about the genesis of these problems rather than what is going on now that we all stepped into this collective cesspool. Who threw the first rock, if you will. Who knows. More on this later.
Here's the reality I think we live in. Note I am saying "I think", because we really don't know:
There are a number of people around the world who would gladly detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of any American city if they could do so. Barring that, they'd gladly detonate a building full of high explosives or anything else that could cause mass casualties and extreme economic damage.
If this is, in fact, true, then we are forced into an extreme offensive position that is unfortunate but necessary at some level. I am not justifying anything here. I am simply going through the scenario to try to make some sense out of it, if that's even possible.
In any escalation there are at least two parties involved. If nobody backs down things devolve until the stronger takes out the weaker and a new opponent shows up (or not). If reason prevails then everybody settles and things calm down.
Affairs in the Middle East show us that feuds can go on for thousands of years. Perhaps this is a failing in the human condition. I don't know. Are we ever going to evolve away from this crap? I hope so.
Going back to the question of the first stone.
I'd like to twist Voltaire's "With great power..." quote and apply it to someone considering acting violently against another with whom they might have a grievance. In this case, the decision by Bin Laden and his group to mount a massive unconventional attack against the US. Regardless of the validity of their grievance it is obvious they did not consider the potential consequences. This is a case of "great power" --meaning the fact that such an unconventional attack would produce devastating results with relatively little effort-- not being tempered with the "great responsibility" part. The move had absolutely no upside. None. I find myself actually thinking highly of President Bush because he had a window of perhaps 30 to 90 days where he could have done just about anything and few would have questioned it. This, of course, included nuking half the arab world out of existence. That was a case of tempering great power with the idea that one must be responsible when exercising it.
So these kinds of things cut both ways. However, if the more powerful force does not regulate its actions the weaker can suffer greatly. In this sense, I tend to think that the US has exercised far more restraints than our enemies would. I am absolutely certain that, if they could, our enemies would flatten US cities en-masse, men, women, children, dogs and cats. Everything. We actually have the ability to do that, today and back in September 11th, but do not and did not.
Did we throw the first stone? Fifty, a hundred or two hundred years ago? Well the US did not exist much beyond that. The entire arab world goes back thousands of years. The British empire had a hand in some of the grievances in that region and the US probably pissed off some people as well. As Chomsky points out this is a NORMAL state. The more powerful actor tends to, historically, behave badly in the eyes of the less powerful. He points out that this goes back to Rome and even before. It's human nature. I am not justifying it, just saying that they'd do it to us if they could because, well, that's the shitty animal we humans seem to be.
I had a micro example of this over the weekend, yesterday as a matter of fact. We went out to the local lake for an afternoon of relaxation and fishing. We took the boat out to a nice secluded cove normally frequented by families. Kids running around, dogs, people hanging out. A good scene. Then three boats showed up full of 20 to 30 year olds and no kids. As soon as they beached the boats they turned on their multi-hundred-watt stereos to physically painful and certainly unhealthy levels for anyone close to the source and the kids running around. Astounding, I thought.
I am one to believe that people are fundamentally good but every so often I run into something like this. I gave them a few minutes to see if they'd realize what they were doing. They started drinking and things were going to get out of hand. I walked over to one of them and, very politely, asked if they would consider lowering their volume --not turning things off-- in order to coexist with the other eight or nine groups at the cove. He pretty much ignored me. I approached another boat owner with the same request. He said "Dude, this is what we do at the lake". Then, he actually turned it up.
What to do? Had I been a violent person with a gun I could see shooting a hole right through the boats and forcefully making them behave or leave. Seriously, these people were inconsiderate scum. They wanted to "own" this cove and their weapon was insanely loud music and not-apt-for-children behavior with half naked young women. This is how wars can start.
What happened? The families left, of course. One by one everyone packed-up and left. We did, too. I was there for my kids, not to pick a fight with assholes. We went somewhere else in the lake and had a wonderful afternoon. I did note their boat registration numbers, took a few pictures and videos and called police this morning. In other words, I am using what power is available to me in order to, if possible, squash them as hard as possible (these offenses are serious misdemeanors in Los Angeles).
I don't fully understand the art of conflict resolution. I know it isn't easy. And you can't always win. When faced with an unreasonable party a conflict can only be resolved through superior force. This is the case for my lake "friends", with the superior force being laws being enforced by authorities, not in-situ physical violence.
The arab world is a difficult place for me to judge. I know quite a bit about the various cultures involved through discussions with friends who emigrated to the US from various countries in the region. I've had very interesting in-depth conversations with people from Israel to Saudi Arabia and nearly every country in between. The fact that I've done business internationally for many years, have travelled extensively and have socialized with people outside the US in their native countries also gives me a different perspective. I won't get into the details at this point because I have to go and this would require a fairly extensive write-up. I'll just say that there's a certain element of the arab world that really needs to think about joining the ranks of civilized society. They are living eight-hundred years behind everyone else. And it shows. And this causes all kinds of problems. And their leaders want them to live in that mental state because it is easier to control them through force and the totalitarian regimes in place there. Regrettably anyone who's tried to bring their people out of the caves invariably seems to meet extreme consequences, and things don't change.
To circle back, I think humans, in general, seem to have the ability and proclivity to become "terrorists" in many ways and in many circumstances, from the bully at the lake to a suicide bomber. Who threw the first rock? I don't know.
The key question here might be more about the genesis of these problems rather than what is going on now that we all stepped into this collective cesspool. Who threw the first rock, if you will. Who knows. More on this later.
Here's the reality I think we live in. Note I am saying "I think", because we really don't know:
There are a number of people around the world who would gladly detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of any American city if they could do so. Barring that, they'd gladly detonate a building full of high explosives or anything else that could cause mass casualties and extreme economic damage.
If this is, in fact, true, then we are forced into an extreme offensive position that is unfortunate but necessary at some level. I am not justifying anything here. I am simply going through the scenario to try to make some sense out of it, if that's even possible.
In any escalation there are at least two parties involved. If nobody backs down things devolve until the stronger takes out the weaker and a new opponent shows up (or not). If reason prevails then everybody settles and things calm down.
Affairs in the Middle East show us that feuds can go on for thousands of years. Perhaps this is a failing in the human condition. I don't know. Are we ever going to evolve away from this crap? I hope so.
Going back to the question of the first stone.
I'd like to twist Voltaire's "With great power..." quote and apply it to someone considering acting violently against another with whom they might have a grievance. In this case, the decision by Bin Laden and his group to mount a massive unconventional attack against the US. Regardless of the validity of their grievance it is obvious they did not consider the potential consequences. This is a case of "great power" --meaning the fact that such an unconventional attack would produce devastating results with relatively little effort-- not being tempered with the "great responsibility" part. The move had absolutely no upside. None. I find myself actually thinking highly of President Bush because he had a window of perhaps 30 to 90 days where he could have done just about anything and few would have questioned it. This, of course, included nuking half the arab world out of existence. That was a case of tempering great power with the idea that one must be responsible when exercising it.
So these kinds of things cut both ways. However, if the more powerful force does not regulate its actions the weaker can suffer greatly. In this sense, I tend to think that the US has exercised far more restraints than our enemies would. I am absolutely certain that, if they could, our enemies would flatten US cities en-masse, men, women, children, dogs and cats. Everything. We actually have the ability to do that, today and back in September 11th, but do not and did not.
Did we throw the first stone? Fifty, a hundred or two hundred years ago? Well the US did not exist much beyond that. The entire arab world goes back thousands of years. The British empire had a hand in some of the grievances in that region and the US probably pissed off some people as well. As Chomsky points out this is a NORMAL state. The more powerful actor tends to, historically, behave badly in the eyes of the less powerful. He points out that this goes back to Rome and even before. It's human nature. I am not justifying it, just saying that they'd do it to us if they could because, well, that's the shitty animal we humans seem to be.
I had a micro example of this over the weekend, yesterday as a matter of fact. We went out to the local lake for an afternoon of relaxation and fishing. We took the boat out to a nice secluded cove normally frequented by families. Kids running around, dogs, people hanging out. A good scene. Then three boats showed up full of 20 to 30 year olds and no kids. As soon as they beached the boats they turned on their multi-hundred-watt stereos to physically painful and certainly unhealthy levels for anyone close to the source and the kids running around. Astounding, I thought.
I am one to believe that people are fundamentally good but every so often I run into something like this. I gave them a few minutes to see if they'd realize what they were doing. They started drinking and things were going to get out of hand. I walked over to one of them and, very politely, asked if they would consider lowering their volume --not turning things off-- in order to coexist with the other eight or nine groups at the cove. He pretty much ignored me. I approached another boat owner with the same request. He said "Dude, this is what we do at the lake". Then, he actually turned it up.
What to do? Had I been a violent person with a gun I could see shooting a hole right through the boats and forcefully making them behave or leave. Seriously, these people were inconsiderate scum. They wanted to "own" this cove and their weapon was insanely loud music and not-apt-for-children behavior with half naked young women. This is how wars can start.
What happened? The families left, of course. One by one everyone packed-up and left. We did, too. I was there for my kids, not to pick a fight with assholes. We went somewhere else in the lake and had a wonderful afternoon. I did note their boat registration numbers, took a few pictures and videos and called police this morning. In other words, I am using what power is available to me in order to, if possible, squash them as hard as possible (these offenses are serious misdemeanors in Los Angeles).
I don't fully understand the art of conflict resolution. I know it isn't easy. And you can't always win. When faced with an unreasonable party a conflict can only be resolved through superior force. This is the case for my lake "friends", with the superior force being laws being enforced by authorities, not in-situ physical violence.
The arab world is a difficult place for me to judge. I know quite a bit about the various cultures involved through discussions with friends who emigrated to the US from various countries in the region. I've had very interesting in-depth conversations with people from Israel to Saudi Arabia and nearly every country in between. The fact that I've done business internationally for many years, have travelled extensively and have socialized with people outside the US in their native countries also gives me a different perspective. I won't get into the details at this point because I have to go and this would require a fairly extensive write-up. I'll just say that there's a certain element of the arab world that really needs to think about joining the ranks of civilized society. They are living eight-hundred years behind everyone else. And it shows. And this causes all kinds of problems. And their leaders want them to live in that mental state because it is easier to control them through force and the totalitarian regimes in place there. Regrettably anyone who's tried to bring their people out of the caves invariably seems to meet extreme consequences, and things don't change.
To circle back, I think humans, in general, seem to have the ability and proclivity to become "terrorists" in many ways and in many circumstances, from the bully at the lake to a suicide bomber. Who threw the first rock? I don't know.
Can you point me to the sections above where you directly disagree with my statements? I don't see them? Or do you agree that America is a terrorist state because it ignores the rule of law and carries out vigilante acts.
I agree with you to some extent, however I think that in many arguments/debates one side can be so clueless and uniformed as to be unworthy of reasoned discussion. This has sadly become the almost default state for many right-wing commentators as they strive for "authenticity" and the analytical, intelligent conservative is left by the wayside.
The CIA gave up snooping on him because they couldn't understand a damned thing he said... his works are also the reason Watson learned to cry.
But seriously, it's no surprise that titling books like "Hegemony or Survival" (I recommend the audiobook, great commute-musing material) and talking about the US being on borrowed time if it keeps acting like 18th century England, will get you examined a little closer by the spooks.
But seriously, it's no surprise that titling books like "Hegemony or Survival" (I recommend the audiobook, great commute-musing material) and talking about the US being on borrowed time if it keeps acting like 18th century England, will get you examined a little closer by the spooks.
It ought to be a surprise. It certainly is contrary to all the rhetoric that I swallowed hook, line and sinker in high school about what kind of country the USA is.
I'm willing to bet that Chomsky was not surprised one bit by these revelations.
I'm willing to bet that Chomsky was not surprised one bit by these revelations.
Hell, according to line I was sold, Chomsky would have fit right in with the founding fathers. That's also assuming you can believe history.
> Chomsky would have fit right in with the founding fathers.
By today's standards, many of the founding fathers would be deemed "terrorists" or "enemies of the state [kingdom]".
A nation naturally seeks to preserve itself, so perhaps that's not surprising, but it's worth pondering for a moment.
By today's standards, many of the founding fathers would be deemed "terrorists" or "enemies of the state [kingdom]".
A nation naturally seeks to preserve itself, so perhaps that's not surprising, but it's worth pondering for a moment.
>The CIA gave up snooping on him because they couldn't understand a damned thing he said...
Hmm, the joke reflects poorly on your reading comprehension skills, since Chomsky's writing is as dry as they come, and very simplistic and analytic. It's the classic analytic american style, no more complicated than reading the newspaper.
If you have issues with Chomsky what would you say if you tried to read, say, Steven Pinker, Hofstadter, or, god forbid, french theorists...
Hmm, the joke reflects poorly on your reading comprehension skills, since Chomsky's writing is as dry as they come, and very simplistic and analytic. It's the classic analytic american style, no more complicated than reading the newspaper.
If you have issues with Chomsky what would you say if you tried to read, say, Steven Pinker, Hofstadter, or, god forbid, french theorists...
talking about the US being on borrowed time ... will get you examined a little closer by the spooks.
Well, we all knew that, didn't we?
But these days, if your friend's friend starts talking like that, your own phone calls and email will be paid attention to.
Well, we all knew that, didn't we?
But these days, if your friend's friend starts talking like that, your own phone calls and email will be paid attention to.
... or your pizza delivery man's other customer.
That has to be the most invasive modal I've ever seen.
Here's the text of the article:
-------------------------------------
For years, the Central Intelligence Agency denied it had a secret file on MIT professor and famed dissident Noam Chomsky. But a new government disclosure obtained by The Cable reveals for the first time that the agency did in fact gather records on the anti-war iconoclast during his heyday in the 1970s.
The disclosure also reveals that Chomsky's entire CIA file was scrubbed from Langley's archives, raising questions as to when the file was destroyed and under what authority.
The breakthrough in the search for Chomsky's CIA file comes in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial: "We did not locate any records responsive to your request." The denials were never entirely credible, given Chomsky's brazen anti-war activism in the 60s and 70s -- and the CIA's well-documented track record of domestic espionage in the Vietnam era. But the CIA kept denying, and many took the agency at its word.
Now, a public records request by FOIA attorney Kel McClanahan reveals a memo between the CIA and the FBI that confirms the existence of a CIA file on Chomsky.
Dated June 8, 1970, the memo discusses Chomsky's anti-war activities and asks the FBI for more information about an upcoming trip by anti-war activists to North Vietnam. The memo's author, a CIA official, says the trip has the "ENDORSEMENT OF NOAM CHOMSKY" and requests "ANY INFORMATION" about the people associated with the trip.
After receiving the document, The Cable sent it to Athan Theoharis, a professor emeritus at Marquette University and an expert on FBI-CIA cooperation and information-gathering.
"The June 1970 CIA communication confirms that the CIA created a file on Chomsky," said Theoharis. "That file, at a minimum, contained a copy of their communication to the FBI and the report on Chomsky that the FBI prepared in response to this request."
The evidence also substantiates the fact that Chomsky's file was tampered with, says Theoharis. "The CIA's response to the FOIA requests that it has no file on Chomsky confirms that its Chomsky file was destroyed at an unknown time," he said.
It's worth noting that the destruction of records is a legally treacherous activity. Under the Federal Records Act of 1950, all federal agencies are required to obtain advance approval from the national Archives for any proposed record disposition plans. The Archives is tasked with preserving records with "historical value."
"Clearly, the CIA's file, or files, on Chomsky fall within these provisions," said Theoharis.
It's unclear if the agency complied with protocols in the deletion of Chomsky's file. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
What does Chomsky think? When The Cable presented him with evidence of his CIA file, the famous linguist responded with his trademark cynicism.
"Some day it will be realized that systems of power typically try to extend their power in any way they can think of," he said. When asked if he was more disturbed by intelligence overreach today (given the latest NSA leaks) or intelligence overreach in the 70s, he dismissed the question as an apples-to-oranges comparison.
"What was frightening in the ‘60s into early ‘70s was not so much spying as the domestic terror operations, COINTELPRO," he said, referring to the FBI's program to discredit and infiltrate domestic political organizations. "And also the lack of interest when they were exposed."
Regardless,, the destruction of Chomsky's CIA file raises an even more disturbing question: Who else's file has evaporated from Langley's archives? What other chapters of CIA history will go untold?
"It is important to learn when the CIA decided to destroy the Chomsky file and why they decided that it should be destroyed,'" said Theoharis. "Undeniably, Chomsky's was not the sole CIA file destroyed. How many other files were destroyed?"
Here's the text of the article:
-------------------------------------
For years, the Central Intelligence Agency denied it had a secret file on MIT professor and famed dissident Noam Chomsky. But a new government disclosure obtained by The Cable reveals for the first time that the agency did in fact gather records on the anti-war iconoclast during his heyday in the 1970s.
The disclosure also reveals that Chomsky's entire CIA file was scrubbed from Langley's archives, raising questions as to when the file was destroyed and under what authority.
The breakthrough in the search for Chomsky's CIA file comes in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial: "We did not locate any records responsive to your request." The denials were never entirely credible, given Chomsky's brazen anti-war activism in the 60s and 70s -- and the CIA's well-documented track record of domestic espionage in the Vietnam era. But the CIA kept denying, and many took the agency at its word.
Now, a public records request by FOIA attorney Kel McClanahan reveals a memo between the CIA and the FBI that confirms the existence of a CIA file on Chomsky.
Dated June 8, 1970, the memo discusses Chomsky's anti-war activities and asks the FBI for more information about an upcoming trip by anti-war activists to North Vietnam. The memo's author, a CIA official, says the trip has the "ENDORSEMENT OF NOAM CHOMSKY" and requests "ANY INFORMATION" about the people associated with the trip.
After receiving the document, The Cable sent it to Athan Theoharis, a professor emeritus at Marquette University and an expert on FBI-CIA cooperation and information-gathering.
"The June 1970 CIA communication confirms that the CIA created a file on Chomsky," said Theoharis. "That file, at a minimum, contained a copy of their communication to the FBI and the report on Chomsky that the FBI prepared in response to this request."
The evidence also substantiates the fact that Chomsky's file was tampered with, says Theoharis. "The CIA's response to the FOIA requests that it has no file on Chomsky confirms that its Chomsky file was destroyed at an unknown time," he said.
It's worth noting that the destruction of records is a legally treacherous activity. Under the Federal Records Act of 1950, all federal agencies are required to obtain advance approval from the national Archives for any proposed record disposition plans. The Archives is tasked with preserving records with "historical value."
"Clearly, the CIA's file, or files, on Chomsky fall within these provisions," said Theoharis.
It's unclear if the agency complied with protocols in the deletion of Chomsky's file. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
What does Chomsky think? When The Cable presented him with evidence of his CIA file, the famous linguist responded with his trademark cynicism.
"Some day it will be realized that systems of power typically try to extend their power in any way they can think of," he said. When asked if he was more disturbed by intelligence overreach today (given the latest NSA leaks) or intelligence overreach in the 70s, he dismissed the question as an apples-to-oranges comparison.
"What was frightening in the ‘60s into early ‘70s was not so much spying as the domestic terror operations, COINTELPRO," he said, referring to the FBI's program to discredit and infiltrate domestic political organizations. "And also the lack of interest when they were exposed."
Regardless,, the destruction of Chomsky's CIA file raises an even more disturbing question: Who else's file has evaporated from Langley's archives? What other chapters of CIA history will go untold?
"It is important to learn when the CIA decided to destroy the Chomsky file and why they decided that it should be destroyed,'" said Theoharis. "Undeniably, Chomsky's was not the sole CIA file destroyed. How many other files were destroyed?"
Would it be more ethical to not read the article, warn others of the modal and refuse the site further traffic instead of copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour?
Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright.
Considering this site is called "Hacker News" I doubt how many feel similarly, though it does have a huge business bend too.
Considering this site is called "Hacker News" I doubt how many feel similarly, though it does have a huge business bend too.
> Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright
More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies.
This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free information, choose your side, go!"
That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it was still worth it.
More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies.
This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free information, choose your side, go!"
That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it was still worth it.
>To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative.
Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put effort into creating this and it's his livelihood.
But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative some someone else to stomp on your business.
Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical.
To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said business was legal).
So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it.
Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated, or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a huge amount?
Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put effort into creating this and it's his livelihood.
But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative some someone else to stomp on your business.
Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical.
To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said business was legal).
So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it.
Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated, or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a huge amount?
> it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood
So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp on you?
You do realize, writing/music/film/art and other such forms of information do not spontaneously spring into existence? This article didn't just fall into the author's lap.
Here is an alternative: you go and do all the legwork that the author did, arrange the interviews, spend days or weeks writing the piece, and then release it for free to the world. That's a perfectly viable option.
But you don't work for free, do you? No, you prefer to let other people do the work, and then you shit on them from behind your computer screen.
"Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated"
That's definitely not an example of "this", it's an example of something that's very different in a lot of ways.
Again, do you think clinically-tested drug formulas just fall out of the sky? On average, it costs between $500M - $2B to develop a new drug. Whether you choose to ignore this or not, these are huge costs that companies need to recoup in order to stay in business and develop new drugs. If the formulas were given away, the companies would have to eat the costs of development and this would not be sustainable.
That doesn't mean we should be happy with the way things are. Our medical system is a mess. We should look for new ways to reduce the costs of drug development. Perhaps we should restrict drug developers from charging exorbitant amounts far in excess of the development costs. But, in my opinion, subverting the people who put in the effort to create is not the answer.
So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp on you?
You do realize, writing/music/film/art and other such forms of information do not spontaneously spring into existence? This article didn't just fall into the author's lap.
Here is an alternative: you go and do all the legwork that the author did, arrange the interviews, spend days or weeks writing the piece, and then release it for free to the world. That's a perfectly viable option.
But you don't work for free, do you? No, you prefer to let other people do the work, and then you shit on them from behind your computer screen.
"Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated"
That's definitely not an example of "this", it's an example of something that's very different in a lot of ways.
Again, do you think clinically-tested drug formulas just fall out of the sky? On average, it costs between $500M - $2B to develop a new drug. Whether you choose to ignore this or not, these are huge costs that companies need to recoup in order to stay in business and develop new drugs. If the formulas were given away, the companies would have to eat the costs of development and this would not be sustainable.
That doesn't mean we should be happy with the way things are. Our medical system is a mess. We should look for new ways to reduce the costs of drug development. Perhaps we should restrict drug developers from charging exorbitant amounts far in excess of the development costs. But, in my opinion, subverting the people who put in the effort to create is not the answer.
Not an ethical imperative to you, perhaps.
I think the old adage needs an update.
"The internet interprets censorship as well as annoying advertising as damage and routes around it"
I think the old adage needs an update.
"The internet interprets censorship as well as annoying advertising as damage and routes around it"
I am not sure if you are asking a question, or if you are rhetorically stating your opinion. Either way, I personally feel like facilitating discussion on this site brings more benefit to the world than warning everyone not to visit the site and perhaps stifling discussion.
I appreciate the contradiction
"refuse the site further traffic"
"copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour"
How is that a contradiction?
If you consider copy-pasting copywritten material to be bad, but the modal also bad, refusing the site traffic sounds like a completely reasonable way to deal with the modal.
If you consider copy-pasting copywritten material to be bad, but the modal also bad, refusing the site traffic sounds like a completely reasonable way to deal with the modal.
The op implies that the comment drives traffic to the website (by generating discussion I suppose), and at the same time, somehow hurts the website by reproducing its content.
(Shrug) There are economic costs associated with abusing your readers the way that magazine does. This is one of them. The market, such as it is, has responded.
No.
I tried to figure out how to remove it with jQuery but eventually gave up and connected my twitter account.
#wapolabs_wrapperLoginOptions <- wapolabs? hopefully Bezos fixes this stuff :)
#wapolabs_wrapperLoginOptions <- wapolabs? hopefully Bezos fixes this stuff :)
Try with the Inspector Console:
This will remove the overlay: document.getElementById("TB_overlay").remove();
This will remove the annoying window: document.getElementById("TB_window").remove();
This will remove the overlay: document.getElementById("TB_overlay").remove();
This will remove the annoying window: document.getElementById("TB_window").remove();
Bezos bought The Post, but actually didn't acquire wapolabs or a few other assets owned by The Post.
(Not that it's hugely relevant here, but I feel obligated to mention that I'm an AWS employee)
(Not that it's hugely relevant here, but I feel obligated to mention that I'm an AWS employee)
The funny thing is if you hit the Reader button in Safari you get a clean version of the article text with no hacks necessary.
Well damn. I was hoping for bugs being concealed under his desk or something.
Yeah, sorry for that - first time I loaded it I only needed to "Continue to Foreign Policy" - didn't get the lightbox modal til a second look.
After the second hurdle between me and the article, I gave up.
Another benefit of blocking scripts by default.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmn...
http://noscript.net/
Shame that they're necessary, but they work well if you can handle the inconvenience of selectively unblocking scripts.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmn...
http://noscript.net/
Shame that they're necessary, but they work well if you can handle the inconvenience of selectively unblocking scripts.
Did you try:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker/edk...
How do you compare them?
How do you compare them?
I have not tried it, sorry.
If they make it that complicated to get to their actual content I simply won't read it. I should not be required to block any scripts in order to make a website usable.
It also means that sights with more than 4-5 things I have to unblock go completely unread as I am unwilling to keep going through them to find the non trash sources.
There is an "Allow all blocked for session" button on the extension that will usually get the site loaded for you with one click.
You can also go to the extension options and white-list the domain(s). You can use wildcards there so you don't have to type all the relevant subdomains (e.g. cdn.example.com would be included with a *.example.com whitelist entry).
You can also go to the extension options and white-list the domain(s). You can use wildcards there so you don't have to type all the relevant subdomains (e.g. cdn.example.com would be included with a *.example.com whitelist entry).
You can usually copy the link and search for it in Google, and then you can see the post. Or you can use Adblock to manually block the firewall (it sees it as some sort of ad, and removes it as such).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
After the second hurdle, in Firefox, View/Page Style/No Style, then scroll down and the article's there.
You're not missing much. First it gets mad that the CIA kept a file on Chomsky, then it gets mad that they destroyed this file. And finally, it gets mad that, after the file was destroyed, they couldn't retrieve it anymore.
That was a surprisingly petulant and inaccurate summary of the article.
I'd be interested to see your version.
The CIA has spent years denying that it created a file on Noam Chomsky, but an FOI request has now uncovered an FBI document referencing the CIA file. The CIA file was destroyed at some point, and it is not clear whether that was done in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
What's your citation for the claim that the CIA denied ever creating a file? All I see is denials that the file existed at the time of the FOIA requests, and nothing to suggest those denials were untruthful.
Use Readability to easily bypass these popups.
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/readability/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/readability/
Thank you for mentioning that. It gave me the idea of trying Safari's Reader button, which also circumvented the modal div.
Safari even uses Readability's codebase for that feature. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/safari_reader_based_...
Here is a link to the actual CIA document that was released:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159950486/CIA-FBI-Referred-Doc
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159950486/CIA-FBI-Referred-Doc
> For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial: "We did not locate any records responsive to your request."
...because we thought life would be easier for us if we didn't even try.
...because we thought life would be easier for us if we didn't even try.
Jim: What's an official reply?
Bernard: Well it just says the Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter and we say something like, the matter is under consideration, or even if we feel so inclined, under active consideration.
Jim: What's the difference?
Bernard: Well under consideration means we've lost the file, under active consideration means we're trying to find it.
Bernard: Well it just says the Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter and we say something like, the matter is under consideration, or even if we feel so inclined, under active consideration.
Jim: What's the difference?
Bernard: Well under consideration means we've lost the file, under active consideration means we're trying to find it.
Press ESC after the page loads, but before the ad/banner loads, that will stop the ad from loading and you can read the article.
Even though there are ways to get around the popups on this article it would still be a lot easier to just post a link to another site without an obtrusive modal window.
"CIA fails to understand a damn thing professor talks about"
"CIA wishes he'd just stick to math."
$('#TB_window, #TB_overlay').hide()
You can run this to get rid of the annoying overlay:
$('#TB_window,#TB_overlay').remove()If you have firebug installed, setting display:none on the modal divs works a treat.
I highly recommend the readability plugin (http://www.readability.com/addons) for dealing with these terrible overlays.
Wow just wow. Why do you even submit an article from a site like that?
They clearly don't want people to read it.
They clearly don't want people to read it.
Just hit "escape" when the page loads. This is "hacker news", right?
If I were the CIA, I'd snoop on Noam Chomsky. The guy has never had a pleasant word ever to say about the US Govt. And if he were more of a man of action, than man of letters, I'd suspect him of actual subversive acts.
set TB_overlay and TB_window to display: none
Chomsky is one of the most important persons in this day in age when it comes to political thought. He's the only one that seems to think.
cache for no signup: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&s...
As a layman reader, the assumptions made by the author and Athan Theoharis seem pretty big, unless they have something else to back it up.
The arguments seem to go like this:
1. CIA denies having a file on Chomsky
2. Someone find a memo that _mentions_ Chomsky
3. Assumption 1: Therefore the CIA had a file on him
4. Assumption 2: Since the CIA had a file at some point, the denial is a lie, but we'll also take it as truth and conclude that they destroyed the file
5. Assumption 3: Destroying CIA files clearly falls under the Federal Records Act.
I mean, at least give me a little more reason to believe those conclusions. Historically or by policy does it really follow that mentioning Chomsky means he has a file? I find it hard to believe that, like Wikipedia, just mentioning someone (in the 70's at least) creates their file. Have CIA files already been determined to have "historical value", is there a case? Otherwise I just have to trust this guys opinion.