Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIA Director Brennan Admits He Was Lying: CIA Really Did Spy On Congress

Posted by timothy on from the note-the-passive-voice-and-weasel-words dept.

Bruce66423 (1678196) writes with this story from the Guardian: The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials. Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on a CIA network, called RDINet, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture." (Sen. Diane Feinstein was one of those vocally accusing the CIA of spying on Congress; Sen. Bernie Sanders has raised a similar question about the NSA.)

49 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. When will we... by PoisOnouS · · Score: 5, Funny

    get an apology from these lying bastards??

    1. Re:When will we... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck the apology. Put him in jail.

      At this point there is no choice but to assume that when the CIA and NSA say they're in compliance with the law, they're bloody well lying.

      When they're outright lying to the people who oversee them, they've become a criminal organization.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:When will we... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "lying bastard" is more or less their job description.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:When will we... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jail isn't going to do any good unless you put the whole agency in jail.

      The solution is a massive budget cut and laws that make specific conduct not only illegal but automatically appoint special prosecutors to act on. Then you put into law and fund an agency who's entire job is to spy on the CIA and report every time they break the law. The biggest problem with the post 9/11 revisions was we gave all these people basically immunity to do whatever they want in the name of national security. It's obscene.

    4. Re:When will we... by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jail isn't going to do any good unless you put the whole agency in jail.

      Fine by me.

    5. Re:When will we... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't want an apology.

      I want to see the files on congress, the last 10 executive branches and staff, the supreme court down to the clerks and all nationally known reporters.

      Any lawyers readying a FOIA suit?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:When will we... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Jail isn't going to do any good unless you put the whole agency in jail.

      OK, fine.

      If there is no oversight, and I don't mean a FISA court whose job it is to say everything is rosy, then you can't have an agency like this.

      Having the CIA directly lying to congress about their activities, and actively spying on the people who are supposed to oversee them is something straight out of fiction -- only it's no longer fiction, they're doing anything they please, and no longer accountable to anybody.

      Fuck, hit them up with a RICO suit. Do ANYTHING.

      What next, he'll go into private industry as a security consultant for corporations? Oh, wait ...

      This is bloody scary. Neither Americans nor the rest of the world signed up for a fucking security agency which is no longer under anyone's control except people who feel they can do anything they want.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:When will we... by eudas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      --
      Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    8. Re:When will we... by Talderas · · Score: 4, Funny

      The NSA already spies on the CIA and FBI and has done so for a long time. Maybe we should ask them to validate.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:When will we... by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, only when their lips are moving.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    10. Re:When will we... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree that it was more than just Berman doing illegal things, I think that by throwing him (and a selection of others) into prison it would send a message to the rest that this sort of activity is not condoned. This will make the rest reconsider taking the same actions.

      Right now most people are "just following orders" because there are consequences to not doing so (losing their jobs) and no consequences to disobeying. We need to change that.

      So yeah, throw him and his cronies in jail.

    11. Re:When will we... by AnOnyxMouseCoward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why not both? - taco girl.

      Seriously we're talking of an organization that is involved in covert military intelligence or worse and spies on the entire world, including US citizens, that is funded by the US government but lies to its elected officials and also spies on them. Really? Shut it down or massively cut down on its powers, and jail every leader involved. If you can't do that, then does the US government control the CIA, or does the CIA control the US government?...

    12. Re:When will we... by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An agency that knows which members of congress are pedophiles and which ones are drug addicts will not be easy to arrest.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
    13. Re:When will we... by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jail isn't going to do any good unless you put the whole agency in jail.

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    14. Re:When will we... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How exactly is a massive government agency massively overstepping its already questionable legal bounds a result of "you wanted smaller government"? That sounds exactly like a prime example of bigger government and why someone might want a smaller one.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    15. Re:When will we... by demachina · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Neither Americans nor the rest of the world signed up for a fucking security agency which is no longer under anyone's control except people who feel they can do anything they want."

      Uh, the CIA has been pretty much like this since its inception during World War II as the OSS and the CIA immediately after. It was reined in briefly by the Churck and Pike Committees in the 70's but that oversight and those reforms were pretty much rolled back by Reagan. Sure, they got to reach new lows after 9/11 with no hold barred torture, but the CIA has been torturing people through proxies for its entire history, so that wasn't exactly new either.

      Not exactly sure why everyone is acting like this is some kind of revelation or anything new, other than its kind of amazing Brennan was foolish enough to admit to it. I predict his career at the CIA will soon come to an end, and he will be replaced with someone with larger brass balls.

      The chances you all are gonna change any of this airing your indignation on /. are vanishingly small.

      --
      @de_machina
    16. Re:When will we... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CIA is just one TLA out of many more that are part of the same problem. This mentality, that they can do whatever the hell they want, and fuck law, due process and constitution, so long as they catch the arbitrarily defined bad guys of the day, is pervasive throughout all government agencies that have anything even remotely to do with law enforcement or military. NSA and CIA spying are links of the same chain that includes DEA no-knock warrants, police departments buying MRAPs for bragging rights etc.

      And yes, there are some agencies that should literally go to jail wholesale. For example, I don't see how you can be working for DEA and not be complicit in activities that, 50 years ago, would be decried as stereotypical police state jackboot thug activity - and all that violence for the sake of suppressing non-violent, consensual activity (well, at least nominally - in practice, these days, it's more often an excuse, and the actual goal is cashing in on asset forfeiture).

    17. Re:When will we... by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Run, it's the Police Police Police", said the Police Police.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. And no one will go to jail by bfmorgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?

    --
    I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
    1. Re:And no one will go to jail by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is. The next step would be for the Senate oversight committee to vote to refer the matter for prosecution. The question is whether they want to go down this road or not. Generally congress has been reluctant to have recorded votes because of the pr hit.

    2. Re:And no one will go to jail by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is. The next step would be for the Senate oversight committee to vote to refer the matter for prosecution. The question is whether they want to go down this road or not.

      The way I see it, if they don't go for prosecution, they've more or less given these agencies carte blanche to violate the law, lie about it, and have no consequences.

      Sorry, but I think this sounds like treason, or at the very least an indication that all of the assurances we've had that they're playing by the rules is a pile of shit.

      So, the question of "do you spy on Americans?" "Are you in compliance with the law?" "Have you been using this information to make yourself rich?" -- every single thing they do pretty much must be distrusted.

      Blatantly lying to Congress means they've reached a point where they don't give a shit.

      This is madness.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:And no one will go to jail by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?

      Depends on who does the lying and how well connected they are.

    4. Re:And no one will go to jail by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Treason is much more than just not doing what congress tells you to do. I agree with you congress should prosecute for lying under oath and lying to congress. They also might want to restructure these agencies. The intelligence agencies are out of control. But treason, no.

    5. Re:And no one will go to jail by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

      It may sound like treason to you, but it's not.

      Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution.

      While it's not treason, it sounds like multiple felonies to me.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:And no one will go to jail by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way I see it, if they don't go for prosecution, they've more or less given these agencies carte blanche to violate the law, lie about it, and have no consequences.

      Welcome to the American legal system, where selective prosecution is standard operating procedure. The only reason to have a legal system which does not require prosecution for known crimes is to permit treating some people differently than others. It leads to the proliferation of bad laws.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:And no one will go to jail by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except there is a law on record for exactly this sort of behavior. The fact that it is not frequently/publicly followed up upon, is another matter (Clapper)

      TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > 1001

        1001. Statements or entries generally

      (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

      (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

      (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

      (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

      shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

      -snip-

      (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

      (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

      (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    8. Re:And no one will go to jail by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well we can all sleep safely knowing that at least baseball players will be smacked down for daring to lie to Congress.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re:And no one will go to jail by dnavid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Treason is much more than just not doing what congress tells you to do. I agree with you congress should prosecute for lying under oath and lying to congress. They also might want to restructure these agencies. The intelligence agencies are out of control. But treason, no.

      The problem here is that its one thing to simply assume Brennan was lying, but its another thing to prove it. The fact that he now says an internal investigation shows members of the CIA did monitor systems operated by Congress doesn't mean he was lying when he testified they did not. It could mean that he simply didn't know, and if that's the case your prosecution would go nowhere.

      You could argue he should have known, but there's two complications here. The first is that the conduct was uncovered as part of an internal CIA investigation, not an external investigator, so attempting to prosecute Brennan would be punishing him not for the misconduct, but the fact he was willing to uncover and admit it. All you would be doing is encouraging people to remain silent. The second thing is that the conduct he admitted to is not as clean-cut as the headline suggests. Apparently what happened was that the CIA created a special firewall within the actual CIA network that they configured to allow Senate investigators to gain access to CIA files. It was this firewall the CIA monitored, which had the net effect of monitoring the Senate's access to the CIA. Even that is basically illegal, but assuming you could monitor what other people did to your network sounds like the sort of mistake a lot of people would make. It would be legal in almost any other setting, but not specifically in this context.

      The CIA personnel still should have known better, or rather should have known they were on questionable ground and sought very high level authorization to take that action, but I don't think this is the kind of smoking gun people think it is.

    10. Re:And no one will go to jail by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?

      Lying to Congress when you possess sufficient blackmail to force each of them out of office is not a punishable offense, and there is no law that could be passed to make it so.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    11. Re:And no one will go to jail by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem here is that its one thing to simply assume Brennan was lying, but its another thing to prove it. The fact that he now says an internal investigation shows members of the CIA did monitor systems operated by Congress doesn't mean he was lying when he testified they did not. It could mean that he simply didn't know, and if that's the case your prosecution would go nowhere.

      Well I checked. Here was the statement "We are not in any way trying to thwart the [Senate Intelligence Committee] report's progress [or] release. As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into computers, nothing could be further from the truth. That's beyond the scope of reason.. tried to work as collaboratively as possible with the committee on its report, and we will continue to do so.". The statement wasn't under oath though so I was wrong there. He can't be charged with anything. Lying to a reporter is not a crime.

      Apparently what happened was that the CIA created a special firewall within the actual CIA network that they configured to allow Senate investigators to gain access to CIA files. It was this firewall the CIA monitored, which had the net effect of monitoring the Senate's access to the CIA. Even that is basically illegal, but assuming you could monitor what other people did to your network sounds like the sort of mistake a lot of people would make. It would be legal in almost any other setting, but not specifically in this context.

      It doesn't appear so. It appears they didn't just monitor but tracked documents and then deleted them. They weren't just doing network monitoring they were doing ECM. The CIA has no right to anything that the Senate ultimately wants.

  3. Then, Why isn't he being arrested and charged w/.. by SirGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Charged with Treason ?

    He violated his departments charter and law...

    So Toss his ass into Gitmo and wait 15 years to bring him to trial ..

    --
    UPS Sucks
  4. Re:That means new privacy laws right? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Feinstein is only against spying when it happens to her. You're on your own.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  5. Beware the monster you abide by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a disease that needs to be stomped out, mercilessly. Allowing the NSA, DHS and CIA (hell, even the IRS, for that matter) to continue to operate as they are allowed to will swallow up the last vestiges of America and its dream.

    The dystopia exists now but it's not too late to turn back.

    1. Re:Beware the monster you abide by foradoxium · · Score: 3, Informative

      there were stories about this in the past weeks..

      "As part of the American Civil Liberties Union's recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the organization sent open records requests to SWAT teams across that state. It received an interesting response. As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments...Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests."

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

      also this link, which I think does a better (and more snarky) job in discussing the issue.

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

  6. No one calling for resignations by timrod · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why hasn't John Brennan been fired yet? If this was any private company in the United States, he'd have been fired on the spot for lying to his superiors for months and trying to cover up his own incompetence.

    1. Re:No one calling for resignations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that you misspelled "Promoted" in your analogy.

  7. Re:A senior administration official LIED?!?!?! by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the Snowden leaks, it *is* the most transparent administration ever. It's too bad that it took leaks to become transparent, but we may as well take what we can get.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  8. To quote Gomer Pyle: by gerardrj · · Score: 3

    Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  9. Re:Then, Why isn't he being arrested and charged w by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not treason. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution.

    However, why isn't he being charged with multiple felonies, including perjury, etc...?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  10. Re:Then, Why isn't he being arrested and charged w by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So Toss his ass into Gitmo and wait 15 years to bring him to trial ..

    What?!?!?! The people in Gitmo actually gets chance to go to trial???? /sarcasm

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. This might be the one thing that gets Congress to by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Congress didn't much care when the NSA was spying on us peons. Now that Congress-critters are the ones being spied on, I'm thinking they just might do something about it. Thanks for pissing of the right people, CIA.

  12. Re:A senior administration official LIED?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You haven't been paying attention, blinded by partisan slogan bullshit. This has been happening since before 9/11.

    No, you haven't been paying attention.

    Obama's DNI Clapper lied under oath to Congress about mass surveillance programs.

    Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder was held in Contempt of Congress:

    On June 28, 2012, Holder became the first U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt.

    Obama's IRS political appointee and documented raging conservative hater Lois Lerner dog ate her hard drive, and she was also held in Contempt of Congress for refusing to testify under oath about her politicization of the IRS.

    So, "this has been happening since before 9/11?

    Ummm, BULLSHIT.

    So Cabinet-level officials such as the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence have committed perjury during Congressional testimony or been held in Contempt of Congress before?

    No, they haven't - every other time officials of that level have been about to be held in Contempt of Congress, the official caved and supplied Congress with what was being asked.

    Holder still hasn't turned over the subpenaed documents that were the subject of his being held in Contempt of Congress.

    NOTHING has happened to Clapper for committing PERJURY.

    And how many more risible excuses is Lerner going to shit out?

  13. Re:And no one will go to jail - just like bankers! by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a moderate, who leans a but left, but I can say without equivocation that this administration has really let people down. Little knownn is that our current Attorney General, Eric Holder, was a lawyer who defended banks prior to coming to Washington. That not ONE of the banking CEO's or their very senior staffers is in jail for what was done several years ago, is an outrage! Unless we start JAILING people who otherwise think they can scoff at the law due to wealth or political connections, we are going down a road that violates the very tenets of our nation's forming.

  14. Unfortunately, Congress will make itself exempt by tekrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And Congress *ONLY*.
    Consider the following; Until very recently Congress were the only individuals exempt from insider trading laws. Congress is exempt from TSA searches when boarding a plane, Congress is exempt from *not* being paid during government shutdowns.

    Congress takes care of itself, NOT the people on the United States. Therefore, Congress will pass a law making itself exempt from CIA/NSA spying and the rest of the country be damned.

    Trust me on this one, if there's one thing Congress is consistent about, with 100% bipartisan support, it's about making sure they are elite, untouchable, and completely corrupt.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Unfortunately, Congress will make itself exempt by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Until very recently Congress were the only individuals exempt from insider trading laws.

      They effectively still are. A key part of the STOCK act was rolled back after the election.

      Therefore, Congress will pass a law making itself exempt from CIA/NSA spying and the rest of the country be damned.

      Interestingly, the UK already has something like this, it's called the Wilson Doctrine and is not a law but rather a promise the Prime Minister makes to MP's by tradition.

  15. Re:And no one will go to jail - just like bankers! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Informative

    9/11 was the most spectacular win for the authoritarians, because they more or less kicked the foundations out from Western society, and have helped to create the worst form of surveillance state you can imagine.

    FTFY

    9/11 was a very public strike against the West by the terrorists but it did little to benefit their own goals (in fact, given the increased US involvement and the general unrest in the Middle East it probably pushed back their goals somewhat). We got to the current state of affairs in this country by our own doing, thanks to our own home-grown corruption and power-hungry factions and an apathetic populace.

    9/11 may not have been engineered by us, but the people in power certainly took advantage of it when it happened.

  16. He did NOT admit he was lying by voss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a difference between making a false statement to congress and lying to congress.
    The difference is intent. You can unknowingly make a false statement based on lack of information.

    There is nothing in any article about this about attempt to cover up or lie. It seems like he been misinformed by his own subordinates
    and after Brennan was briefed by the inspector general he went to congress and told them the truth.

    "“Recognizing the importance of this matter and the need to resolve it in a way that preserved the crucial equities of both branches,
      Director Brennan asked the CIA Office of Inspector General to examine the actions of CIA personnel,” Boyd said."

  17. Re:A senior administration official LIED?!?!?! by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Informative

    So Cabinet-level officials such as the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence have committed perjury during Congressional testimony or been held in Contempt of Congress before?

    No, they haven't - every other time officials of that level have been about to be held in Contempt of Congress, the official caved and supplied Congress with what was being asked.

    Have you heard of Ollie North?

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  18. Re:And no one will go to jail - just like bankers! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

    in fact, given the increased US involvement and the general unrest in the Middle East it probably pushed back their goals somewhat

    Not at all. It made the position of Islamist groups that were arguing from more moderate positions, and generally preferred a democratic transition to their goal (like Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots), much weaker. At the same time, it made the position of groups arguing for violent jihad much stronger - especially since, with foreign intervention in Muslim countries, they could declare jihad to be fard ayn (individually obligatory for any observant Muslim) on scriptural grounds. It also created lots of martyrs.

    Think about where things were before the intervention, and where they are now. Taliban is rapidly regaining control over Afghanistan, and in the meantime Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are also rapidly Islamized by similar Salafist strains. In Pakistan, military and intelligence are stuffed with Taliban-friendly Islamists. In Iraq and Syria, large swaths are under control of an armed jihadi group that has officially declared itself to be the Caliphate, and which practices the version of Islam that even many other extremist Salafi organizations find too brutal - and they keep expanding territory and getting a steady influx of volunteers. Volunteers, I must add, that come from our own countries, and are in many cases not only our citizens by law, but are born and raised here within our culture - and yet falling under the influence of extremist preachers who convert them. Do you really think that we could see anything on that scale without the free (to them) advertising that the West gave to jihadis?