Slashdot Mirror


Trump Is Looking at Plans For a Global Network of Private Spies (vice.com)

David Gilbert, writing for Vice: The White House is reportedly looking at a proposal to create a ghost network of private spies in hostile countries -- a way of bypassing the intelligence community's "deep state," which Donald Trump believes is a threat to his administration. The network would report directly to the president and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and would be developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, according to multiple current and former officials speaking to The Intercept. "Pompeo can't trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him," a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals told the website. Described as "totally off the books," the network would be run by intelligence contractor Amyntor Group and would not share any data with the traditional intelligence community.

232 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. People at the top are not mentally stable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The U.S. government is becoming more and more corrupt.

    1. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the stink of corruption rises form the attempt to disassemble the US government, parcel the things of value out to private enterprises and shove the cost of paying for this theft off on to the middle-class

    2. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What part of the government have the Democrats been trying to sell off? You are confused by all the people that say they are the same when what they really mean is that they both have problems. The two parties are quite a bit different, one believes in my government while the other seemingly believes in no government anymore.

      The reality is that we already have the CIA doing this, Trump would just rather pay a private company to do it for profit rather than a government agency doing it for the country with no profit motive to take them off their mission.

    3. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. And once you realize that both parties do it relentlessly, in coordinated lockstep, and that partisan idiots give their own party a complete pass when they do it, you will see how impossible it is to stop.

      This is obviously and poignantly wrong. We have a huge counter-example right here. The Democratic party supports net neutrality, the Republican party does not. How is that co-ordinated lock step?

      You are right that your elected officials don't (usually) hate one another but they aren't in this together, either. The Republicans and the Democrats are competing for the same positions, they may have gentlemen's agreements on what is acceptable behaviour, but they are still die-hard competitors for the same positions. I think, in general, their relationship could be summarised as frenemies, though I think with the introduction of Tea Party and Alt-Right candidates the legislature is moving away from friendships and towards partisan enemies.

      This means that government can get away with anything. You don't think the parties start with what they want to achieve and work backwards from there? You don't think that they divide up the unpopular positions to push down the throats of their own supporters?

      Yes, I don't think that and I don't think any sane person would. Politicians are political, they have views and beliefs and while they may compromise those beliefs for the sake of winning an election, they are not working together towards a single unified goal. Beyond that, keeping a conspiracy of that sort secret would require levels discretion that clearly the average elected official is not capable of maintaining. You can imagine that everyone running for office in America is secretly a super-villain, but I don't think that delusion is going to help you understand anything.

      Yeah, keep telling yourself that elected republicans hate democrats, and vice versa. You silly child. Hate is only good for manipulating stupid people. "Our" elected officials are all in it together.

      There's a middle ground between those extremes, and that's where sanity lies. Republican and Democratic officials, generally speaking, don't hate each other, but they aren't working towards the same goals either. There are consistent differences between the positions of the two parties over multiple election cycles. It is true, that there is a lot of similarity between the two parties, but that's because they operate in the same country, solicit money from the same donors and fight for the votes from the same people.

      Basically you are arguing that competing tool manufacturers are secretly working together because they produce tools that look very similar. No, the tools look the same to the untrained eye because they have been produced to do the same job with similar technology and similar materials. An expert, however, will be able to tell you if one company produces a better quality tool than the other for the job you want to get done. And just like in construction, in every election you should be trying to pick the best tool for the job.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Canbot · · Score: 1

      The government is too big and grows bigger every election cycle as the new guy pays off his voters with government handouts. There is nothing wrong with shrinking the government.

    5. Re:People at the top are not mentally stable. by silvergeek · · Score: 1

      Why? Because We the People vote the psychopaths, liars, and greedy rich into office. The peoples's vote could, in theory, (except for the gerrymandering, phony news, and other big-dollar manipulation schemes) put descent people into office if the voters cared enough to keep themselves educated and aware. So, who is ultimately at fault for us ending up with mentally unstable, greedy, sociopathic leaders?

    6. Re:People at the top are not mentally stable. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Nahh, he's not being corrupt, he's just copying the style of President Clark.

    7. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You forgot to put in anything that would indicate you're right. Lots of claims, bizarrely phrased as questions. Accusations of stupidity.

      Twat, I suppose.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Taking the unpopular position is a tactic, not proof that tactics are not used. I mention this specifically in the fourth paragraphette of my post.

      I fear you lack the intellectual standing to participate in the conversation.

      lol. What a dickhead.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    9. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      First sentence, accusation of being sheep. Last sentence, accusation of being a sheep. You're a boring pseudo-intellectual cunt, mate. The whole "I've seen behind the curtain" routine is old as fuck.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    10. Re:People at the top are not mentally stable. by DougDot · · Score: 1

      The people who elected them are the real problem. As of today, 37.3% of adult Americans still approve of Trump, and the trend line is going up.

      https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

    11. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Restatement is a literary device. Thank you for the critique.

      There is no curtain. Just a bunch of people pushing ideological agendas that don't benefit them or society. Tantamount to ideologically working for the man.

      Are you, perchance, one of the partisan? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    12. Re: People at the top are not mentally stable. by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      No, the stink of corruption rises form the attempt to disassemble the US government, parcel the things of value out to private enterprises and shove the cost of paying for this theft off on to the middle-class

      IMHO government corruption is a side effect, perhaps an illusion. Yet corruption does exist. Where?

      Looking objectively, the government is extremely troubled, like a car stuck in deep snow. There's a lot of thrashing and inner panic. There's desperation to deal with numerous problems but not enough ability to get anywhere.

      For sure, there are a lot of corrupt people in power, and power corrupts. Yet with so many corrupt people, the government has failed to implode generations ago, over and over, leaving mankind to pick through the ruins of armageddon, so deep down there is still a desire to make things work.

      The corruption isn't there all that much at the aggregate level (though micro levels could be rife with it), but at the aggregate level we seem to be going farther into the woods, not working our way out.

      Many people have the freedoms to change things, try things, etc. Indeed, there are enormous opportunities for people to better themselves, counter to the idea that government is corrupt. In these circumstances, and by sheer proximity of people, there is a lot of friction and pain. This is unavoidable.

      Indeed, people have the means to gather more and more information about other people, and it becomes inevitable that people will do so perhaps unwittingly or effortlessly. Is it natural for government (good or bad) to leverage this? Corporations are most likely to leverage it anyways, and if you are looking for corrupt entities, corporations are more likely to be incredibly corrupt. Is there anything in that Trump has a business background? It's doubtful - he could have stayed in the corporate world and probably would have become better off faster.

      The only thing left for people to do is to handle the situation. There are cycles where technology makes life scarier. Then some technology might emerge to alleviate the problem, but one is always vulnerable in new ways.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  2. CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Destined+Soul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then he's not really doing a good job of directing it, is he?

    1. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      don't worry, he will do much better this time with no accountability

    2. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by UdoKeir · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was left over with a mess

      Ivan, this is poor English grammar. Will you be beaten and sent to a gulag for this mistake?

    3. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "which is why we also don't have the truth about things like Benghazi"

      How do you know "we" don't know the truth?

    4. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Kyudosha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      New FSB directive: co-opt liberal and social justice terminology in an attempt to sow dissent. When called out for your shit, make sure to call it "racism" and say you are "deeply offended". If possible, say "so much for the tolerant left".

      --
      ç
    5. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to be a requirement in order to run a department for Trump. The head of the EPA didn't think it should exist because it hurt business too much. The head of the housing department came out with a bunch of statements against social housing. So not trusting your department would make you qualified to run it.

    6. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      lol wut

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    7. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the CIA is showing that most of these conspiracies are not real. So this doesn't fit Trump narrative. I honestly think that Trump just wanted to get into office, just to see all the real dirt that is going on, only to realize there was no grand conspiracy, just normal paper pushing, and a few good ideas and a few bad ideas. Trump being a Conspiracy theorist, and not getting the information that he knows in his heart to be true, figures the CIA is against him, purposely hiding information.

      Trumps main chip on his shoulder is because he feels like the upper crust is always rejecting him. Hence his appeal to the middle class, who also have the same feeling that the upper class folks are trying to lock these people out. So no matter how rich he is, or powerful of a position he is in, the fact that he isn't accepted as one of them bugs him.

      This man really is unfit for the position, and is more or less controlled by others, just as long as they keep his tweeter running.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Huh? He had accountability?

    9. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since I believe in democracy, I'm all for Trump being able to trash any and all federal departments - that's the power the Constitution gives him.

      What I object to is the Byzantine palace intrigue bullshit. Don't trust the CIA? Fine - fire everyone, bar them from future government work, and start over. That's very transparent, very open, and sends a clear message to both voters and other departments. This double-secret probation stuff is just the worst.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christians were behind most cruel wars, terror and suffering the past two millenia and continues so today. Americans are behind majority of wars and conflicts the last 60 years with 60+ wars and counting not including numerous conflicts.

      Let's blame all white, christians, americans for what ignorant uneducated u.s. voters do.

    11. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fake news?

    12. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It seems to be a requirement in order to run a department for Trump. The head of the EPA didn't think it should exist because it hurt business too much. The head of the housing department came out with a bunch of statements against social housing. So not trusting your department would make you qualified to run it.

      There are a LOT of federal agencies and red tape I'd like to see be done away with, those are two of them.

      The best way to destroy them, is to put someone in there and have them begin dismantling them from the inside.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Ivan, calm down, drink your vodka and eat whatever the Russian equivalent of a Snickers is. Maybe a stale old potato?

    14. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by mbkennel · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Since I believe in democracy, I'm all for Trump being able to trash any and all federal departments - that's the power the Constitution gives him."

      No it doesn't. The establishment and authority of those departments is law passed by Congress. The President is not a dictator.

    15. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

      > Don't trust the CIA? Fine - fire everyone

      Problem is that's impossible. The whole structure relies on a lot of people who have been doing the same thing for years. Here's a good writeup on the topic:

      "But there was another reason. During and after the Civil War, government laws and policies had become far more complex with more long-lasting effects on society. A presidential term lasted four years; policies could last for generations. If administrators were replaced every time a president left office, as previously had been the case, there would be no continuity in government. New administrators would constantly have to learn the complexities of their jobs, and by the time they mastered it, they would have to leave. Government operations had outgrown a president’s term."

      https://geopoliticalfutures.co...

    16. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by kqs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11. Liberals are fine going after Islamic terrorists, but not all Muslims. Conservatives seem to want to go after all Muslims, or at least treat all Muslims poorly. Or, to put it another way: "White gun owners were behind the attack in Las Vegas. Conservatives defend white gun owners at all costs."

      The Russian government meddled in the 2016 elections with trolling that didn't kill anyone but which may have changed a presidential election. Liberals are horrified, conservatives defend Russians at all costs.

      Bigotry is a better word than racism. Bigotry is hating all Muslims for the acts of a few, or all Russians for the acts of their government, or all white gun owners for the acts of a few. Bigotry is not really a conservative or liberal trait, though recently conservatives have chosen bigots as their leaders for some reason. There are certainly liberal bigots, but liberals try to not elect them.

    17. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The job of the Congress is to say "make a spy agency, you have $X to work with". The implementation details belong to the Executive branch. If Trump wants to say "out with the CIA, in with the CIB", that's fine and all, he gets to pick who works for him. But we don't need redundant agencies with duplicate charters (and budgets).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 2

      New administrators would constantly have to learn the complexities of their jobs, and by the time they mastered it, they would have to leave.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. The more complex the government, the less I want it to be able to do. It isn't acting in our interests, after all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Comboman · · Score: 1

      The best way to destroy them, is to put someone in there and have them begin dismantling them from the inside.

      You mean the Republican incompetence at running government is intentional? They may be smarter than I gave them credit for.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    20. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Trump isn't so much controlled by others except the Russians. He's just an impressionable 15 year old. There are two things to remember about Trump: he does everything for himself and he destroys everything he touches. Good luck, America, nice knowing ya.

    21. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative
      It doesn't really work that way: for the high up roles, he generally needs the consent of the senate to appoint "who works for him". For the lower roles, he doesn't get a say at all. That's why you see Senate hearings on everything from Cabinet roles to the CIA director. From Wikipedia (which is sourced if you really want to go down that rabbit hole):

      The Director is a civilian or a general/flag officer of the armed forces nominated by the President, with the concurring or nonconcurring recommendation from the DNI, and must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. [My emphasis]

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    22. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I honestly think that Trump just wanted to get into office,

      See, that's a point we have to differ on. I don't think Trump actually wanted to win. Did he want the attention he got by running for the nomination? Sure. He loves being in the spotlight. I think he enjoyed all the free press he got while he was running for the nomination. But I don't think he ever planned on winning the election.

      And the responsibilities of being President? I think we can safely say, not even eleven months into his term, that he really doesn't like the responsibilities. He doesn't like that he can't snap his fingers and get things done like he might be used to. He can't fire Senators and Representatives.

      And he flat out hates the criticism. I mean, it was fine for him to criticize Obama. Because Trump is never wrong, just ask him. But how dare anyone criticize him? I mean, he got some back when he was just a real estate mogul. But he could ignore it, then. And then when he was the host of "The Apprentice", he could always blame an episode's ratings on someone else.

      Now? Hell, even Fox News drags him on occasion. (The last Fox News job approval poll on Trump had him at -19 points, that is to say, 38% approval, 57% disapproval.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    23. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Actually, Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda was a terrorist organization that used propaganda and religious zealots to wage a political campaign of terrorist attacks against the United States and western democracies. It was estimated that there were between 200 and 1,000 members of Al-Qaeda. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Do you think it's right to condemn a group based on the actions of 0.0625% of it's membership?

      You should also be further aware that part of the goal of Al-Qaeda and later DAESH was to incite the western world into attacking innocent Muslims, so that they could gain power in the Muslim world. Conservatives who blame all Muslims for the actions of a small group of murderous criminals play right into the hands of those same criminals.

      Russians meddled in the 2016 elections with trolling that didn't kill anyone. Liberals act horrified.

      The Russian government meddled in the 2016 elections and liberals are horrified at the results of that meddling. Conservatives, however, are ok with it because they won. Way to sell out your own country for a bit of fleeting power.

      Got it.

      Nope.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    24. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by tbannist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, if this is true, it's not about trusting or not trusting the CIA. It's about creating a spy organization that doesn't report to anyone but the leader. It would be about having spies, and probably assassins, that are free from oversight and regulation. It would be about creating a secure and loyal power base like the one that Putin has, that can eliminate anyone who challenges the leader's position.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    25. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by show+me+altoids · · Score: 1

      The President is not a dictator.

      He's trying his best, just give him time.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    26. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by Canbot · · Score: 1

      That would really be throwing the baby out with the bath water. When people say the CIA is corrupt, or can't be trusted it doesn't mean that they are all comic book villains. It is enough that bad actors have enough sway within the organization to do terrible things. Just like a cop won't cross the blue line a spook won't blow a whistle.

    27. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 2

      Yes, but assuming the confirmed director of the CIA and Trump are working together (as seems to be the case here), they should be able to fire anyone or everyone in the agency, and hire replacements at their pleasure (well, conformant with EEOC rules etc).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 2

      That's a fair point, but just as replacing everyone every election would be bad, never cleaning house is bad. Large institutions become gradually more corrupt over time, and humanity has never found a fix for that, beyond the bigger hammer approach.

      For the same reason, I think we should go back to state-appointment of senators (and then switch back again in 50 years or so) - the corruption is so firmly in place that simply switching the system will disrupt the finely-tune lobbying machine for decades. Both ways are vulnerable to corruption, but there's a win in switching.

      Similarly, replacing government agencies with new people (but a similar charter) every 50-100 would be very beneficial. And they're really bad now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Well if you are saying that from time to time the area of low-lying, uncultivated ground where water collects should be emptied out of said water, I agree.

    30. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The solution is obvious. Elect Presidents for a single 20 year term. Make the minimum age to be President 40 and mandatory retirement age 65. Since a 65 year old President will not have a 40 year old Son/Daughter power will still have to move away from a single dynasty.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    31. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      I can't believe I didn't see it coming. I wondered out loud last year "Once Trump is the Government how will he justify all of his bat shit government conspiracies?!" ...one year later: "I'm being attacked by the DEEP STATE, which is a parallel government where Obama and Hillary are co-presidents. I'm not president of that government, so if it's bad, it's them."

      Fuck me.

    32. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Napoleon down to Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, various Caesars, Alexander the Great etc (not forgetting a raft of near east and asian nut jobs. Yup, they're all down to being Christian, or not.

    33. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The reality is Trump is pretty dim. You do not need private spies, you just need private analysts and demand you spies provide unfiltered evidence, no evidence, tell them to go back to work. Don't worry about fake evidence, you have good analysts and they will punch holes right through it. Don't trust contractors ever, they are bound by the demands of profit, to tell you what ever generates the most profit, just like they already do and hence the chaos. The corporation have corrupted a lot of people via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... A filtering project, where corrupt corporate executives establish contacts with the readily corruptible and via lobbyists and corrupt politicians they make sure the corrupted get promoted (then act as double agents against the government to serve the interests of corporations). There are plenty within FBI/NSA/CIA that are fully aware of the corruption but are afraid to do something about it, shame to live in fear and really rather pathetic, when it is corrupt who should truly fear your courage, especially when you display it publicly. Trump was a fool that hired those who could never really ever be friends, just acquaintances always looking to stab you in the back for their personal advantage, rather than the best people for the job.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    34. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Remember, you can't spell "Benghazi" without "AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    35. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If Trump wants to stiff the upper class and make the middle class like him, he's really doing a bad job of it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re: CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming Napoleon wasn't Christian? Frederick the Great? King Leopold?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:CIA Director doesn't trust the CIA? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Indeed; the trick seems to be getting the outflow higher than the inflow!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. That sounds familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, isn't this the same reasoning that led to the creation of the SS in the 20s?

  4. Re:trump dat bitch by swimboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
  5. Holy shit by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump continues to go down the hole to hell further and faster.
    America NEEDS mueller to really get on this probe. There is little doubt that Trump committed treason, but now, he is going off the deep end.
    THis is exactly how dictators operate and need to be stopped.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lets be real here. Trump could shoot people in the streets, and without a 2/3 majority in the Senate, there is no way he would ever see any consequences for the action, barring his cabinet certifying him as insane, which will not happen.

      Sit tight, we have ~7 years to go (and, yes, I say seven, because the Dems are still whining about Hillary and her loss, as opposed to regrouping and getting people on board who might get them to win again. Hint: The same gun control crap will only ensure a trump win. Focus on issues; the guns can come later when you actually have a usable foothold in Congress.

    2. Re:Holy shit by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Trump continues to go down the hole to hell further and faster. America NEEDS mueller to really get on this probe. There is little doubt that Trump committed treason, but now, he is going off the deep end. THis is exactly how dictators operate and need to be stopped.

      Demonstrating that conspiracy theories can get up mods on /., if you're promoting the right conspiracy theory...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:Holy shit by thaylin · · Score: 1
      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Holy shit by laxguy · · Score: 1

      also known as Fake News.

    5. Re:Holy shit by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem is there are too many people willing to look the other way, or make excuses for such a behavior. The problem is for many of the Republicans who are in Power if they target Trump, they could loose the 30% of their voters. We are not seeing anyone brave enough to stand up against him, and be willing to run again.

      For the long term, this will be bad for the Republican Party, espectially after the Democrats can regroup.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Holy shit by kqs · · Score: 1

      If there must be investigations, they should be conducted by impartial parties, not political gamesters.

      I too would like an impartial investigator, but we're stuck with a conservative republican. Though I suspect that you were fine with political gamesters for the 25+ years of Clinton investigations.

      Actually, comparing the Clinton and Trump investigations is informative. They investigated the Clintons for 25 years and found that one of them lied about a blow job and the other one is incompetent at email security. LOCK HER UP! They investigated Trump for less than a year and have already found that many people in Trumps campaign and administration lied under oath about talking to Russians, and have already filed charges. Yup, multiple people lying under oath about the same thing seems legit.

    7. Re:Holy shit by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      So, normally, I don't respond to the blindingly stupid (like you), but you do realize that a number of people on your list aren't in Congress any more, right?

      For fuck's sake, you list Eric Cantor on there, and he resigned in 2014. So, if you can't even manage to have a list that is current, how much else are you wrong about?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re:Holy shit by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You have a strange definition of "conspiracy theory". Hint: It takes more that just being ignored by MSNBC.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/fired-fbi-official-at-center-flynn-clinton-dossier-controversies-revealed.html

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    9. Re:Holy shit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're being overly optimistic here. Read the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Pence and the Cabinet can declare Trump incompetent, but Trump can file a written claim that he is so competent, and that stands unless two-thirds of both houses agree with Pence. The Democrats could wind up with two-thirds of the House in 2018, but they can't possibly get more than a small majority in the Senate.

      There's still plenty of time for Democrats you never heard of to show up, run for President, and run competent campaigns. It's three years to the next Presidential election.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. There's no good that can come of this by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot tolerate your president trying to build a power structure outside the one constrained by your Constitution unless you WANT a dictatorship.

    He's already tried to bring the FBI and court system to heel (including at least twice now declaring himself above the law), he's expressed an interest in controlling the media to ensure it aligns with his wishes (and taken a few practical steps in that direction), and now he's going to create a new intelligence service that is under his direct control?

    Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?

    1. Re:There's no good that can come of this by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?

      I've heard Trump voters saying things along the lines of "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, hold on a second, I need to check with the president if it is true. That is how confident I feel in the president."

      We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?

      We'll likely found out at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:There's no good that can come of this by lkcl · · Score: 1

      You cannot tolerate your president trying to build a power structure outside the one constrained by your Constitution unless you WANT a dictatorship.

      well... according to the system utilised - known to be THE weakest form of government ever invented (democracy) - the citizens of the united states *do* want him in and thus *have* trusted him to make the right decisions for the four years of his term of office and thus *do* want a dictatorship oh hang on... https://politics.slashdot.org/... https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://yro.slashdot.org/story... https://politics.slashdot.org/...

    4. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.

      Trump is their god.

    5. Re:There's no good that can come of this by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just ask them if they want this system in place the next time a democrat president sits in the whitehouse?

      Even if they trust trump to the end of the world (which is batshit crazy all on its own), their rabid distrust of everyone else should slap them back down to earth.

      Give the whitehouse a private army / spy network / whatever else controlled exclusively by the president, and it will still be there for the next president.

      No matter what happens, whether it's 3 or 7 years, the next president will *not* be Trump.

      We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.

      key word being 'ostensibly Christian'; they're not Christian... at most they're just 'team Christian', and only when it suits. We're about to watch "ostensible Christians" in Alabama elect a pedophile because he's on the same team as the sexual predator in chief.

    6. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?

      I came to the conclusion months ago that he can't do anything that will cause his hardcore supporters to stop supporting him. We're getting reports of people in places like Alabama saying if Jesus came back and ran as a Democrat they'd still vote for Trump. We need to admit in America that for about 80-90% of the population the only thing that matters is whether there is a D or an R by a candidate's name and all other issues are negotiable. Assuming he can avoid doing something illegal that gets him removed from office or makes him resign, he's going to be re-elected in 2020. The economy is good and in almost every case of a sitting president losing a re-election bid, a bad economy was in play. Heck, GW Bush and Obama both ran for re-election with kind of crummy economies and both won easily. Trump has everything in his favor. The damage will be immense and his successor will have to do a lot of repair work in 2024 to fix the messes he'll cause in 2 terms, but angry white people love him and there's sadly still enough of them to decide the election in 2020 for Trump.

    7. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Just ask them if they want this system in place the next time a democrat president sits in the whitehouse?

      "It's OK to cheat to win, when you're right." Both sides are guilty of that, though I'm not going to argue whether it's an evenly divided guilt or not.

      However, given that for Trump's base 'their guy' is in power, I doubt they're worried much about keeping him there - the rules can be bent to make a 2nd term happen, and then you have another 4 years to work on making a Republican dynasty a thing.

      I mean... look at gerrymandering. It's not exactly an obscure attempt to manipulate democracy to ensure a win, and it's not a great long-term method for achieving that end repeatedly.

    8. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?

      I've heard Trump voters saying things along the lines of "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, hold on a second, I need to check with the president if it is true. That is how confident I feel in the president."

      We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.

      I heard a (female) Trumpkin and self confessed eveangelical say that: "...he must walk with god, if you are that rich god must love you". It is fascinating how Americans have managed to turn Jesus who stormed into the temple in Jerusalem and toppled the moneylender's tables into a modern day god of money and greed.

    9. Re:There's no good that can come of this by gtall · · Score: 1

      And he's attempting to get several new courts authorized claiming the current ones are overburdened. Guess who get to appoint the sycophantic new judges. We'll get more dimbulbs like Gorsuch...

      Impeaching that moron is not good either, we'd get that Bible thumping idiot, Pence, who will have a seance...errr...prayer service before every decision...."Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

    10. Re:There's no good that can come of this by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The majority of the citizens of the United States did not actually come down in favor of any specific person being President at the last election. In terms of share of vote, Clinton came first (though with fewer votes than 50%); Trump was in second place.

      Trump won because the system we have is based upon the support of states, not the support of citizens.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:There's no good that can come of this by jbengt · · Score: 2

      You misspelled misspelled.
      And if it's a "fishing expedition" (it's not), Mueller at least knows where they're biting, as he's already gotten Guilty pleas.

    12. Re:There's no good that can come of this by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Nice try to change the subject with more fake news. FYI many of those that complaining the loudest about drone strikes are those complaining about Trump. The Republicans were the ones with the greatest support for drone strikes during both previous administrations. And the Trump administration hasn't quit killing people with Predator drones.

    13. Re:There's no good that can come of this by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Just ask them if they want this system in place the next time a democrat president sits in the whitehouse?

      Some of them are secretly hoping that there won't be a "next time a democrat president sits in the White House", which is one potential consequence of giving the President his own secret army of spies and assassins...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    14. Re:There's no good that can come of this by tbannist · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's the prosperity gospel. The basic premise is that there is an all-good, interventionist, God, therefore the people that good things happen to must be good people, and the people that bad things happen to must be bad people. Unless, of course, bad things are happening to you or me, then it's God testing our greatness. The corollary is, of course, that taxes on rich people are inherently unjust because rich people are doing good while taxes on the poor are just what those sick depraved perverts deserve.

      It's a truly sickening perversion of Christianity.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    15. Re:There's no good that can come of this by tbannist · · Score: 1

      well... according to the system utilised - known to be THE weakest form of government ever invented (democracy) - the citizens of the united states *do* want him in and thus *have* trusted him to make the right decisions for the four years of his term of office and thus *do* want a dictatorship oh hang on...

      Oh no. Trump was elected by the electoral college, not by the democratic will of Americans, always remember Trump lost the popular vote. In an actual Democracy, Trump would still be claiming the election was rigged.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    16. Re:There's no good that can come of this by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I came to the conclusion months ago that he can't do anything that will cause his hardcore supporters to stop supporting him.

      There are a probably a few things Trump could do that would cause him to lose his hard core supporters, but they are very few. The only one that I'm reasonably sure would absolutely lose him the next election is raising taxes.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    17. Re:There's no good that can come of this by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >It's a truly sickening perversion of Christianity.

      Well, you could always ask the Pope to start preaching the virtues of charity and an austere lifestyle... from his palace, on his throne, surrounded by treasures and with servants ensuring he doesn't get dirt on his gold-encrusted robes.

  7. Re:Vice reports from an anonymous source by cloud.pt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yet they have been corroborated a gazillion times and are, unusually, one of the most trusted sources of relevant information these days. Gonzo style journalism sux at first, but it has a "raison d'etre" that sinks in pretty damn fast.

  8. Dangerous and terrifying... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the making of a secret police agency that doesn't have any oversight from lawful civil authority (courts, Congress). This idea needs to be shut down. Hard.

    1. Re:Dangerous and terrifying... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Private spy agencies would work for anybody who pays them.

      Including any oligarch on the planet. Is it any wonder a rich guy would want that?

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Dangerous and terrifying... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      This is the making of a secret police agency that doesn't have any oversight from lawful civil authority (courts, Congress). This idea needs to be shut down. Hard.

      Makings? This already exists: get arrested and you'll find out how much you miss your one phone call.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  9. Dumbest Idea Ever by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Trump wants us to run two completely independent intelligence networks? How is this not insanely wasteful? What happened to those small government principles?

    And here is the kicker:

    The group reportedly brought in former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North to sell the idea to Trump.

    Their salesman is going to be the poster boy for corruption in the military. The only reason he's not a felon is a technicality, and he admitted his wrongdoing in front of Congress.

    I want to believe this is total bullshit. It's coming from Vice, so maybe it's safe to ignore it for the time being.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:Dumbest Idea Ever by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      There are 17 members in the US intelligence community. Not all of them perform intelligence gathering as this one would however there is the CIA and the DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency). I left out the FBI because it is supposed to be national but if this new private network of spies is true then they would probably work within the US too. And there would probably be some overlap with the NSA so you would be looking at it competing with possibly four departments.

    2. Re:Dumbest Idea Ever by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a common play for leaders to develop parallel, privately controlled security and even military apparatuses where institutional or national loyalties may outweigh personal loyalty to the leader (Hitler's Waffen-SS), or where legalities restrain the leader prompting him to find ways to exercise power covertly and without restriction (Nixon's Plumbers).

      It's not dumb, it's treacherous.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Dumbest Idea Ever by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happened to those small government principles?

      The Republicans only want small government when some other party is in control. When Republicans are in control, they want an all-powerful government.

    4. Re:Dumbest Idea Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >I want to believe this is total bullshit. It's coming from Vice, so maybe it's safe to ignore it for the time being.

      Jesus, wake the fuck up. This is exactly in line with everything going on.

      Decimation of the state dept, stacking courts with incompetent ultra-right judges and all the rest. The list goes on and on and on.

      Your partisanship is blinding you to some serious shit.

  10. Everyone but trump by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who would be stupid enough to do something like this?

    Trump can't even keep his mouth shut long enough to save himself from criminal liability or resist to the urge to give Russian government the location of U.S. nuclear submarines.

    Any spy who reports directly to trump is a dead man walking.

    1. Re:Everyone but trump by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      Keep trying. Go ahead. Are you actually hired for Trump media damage control?

      The sheer number of credible media sources gives this madness, this Trump SS idea, a lot of believability. Everyone has dirt, and by gosh, he'll distract the media with what he finds.... and not necessarily within the lawful confines of his office.

      Don Quixote couldn't have done better. You, either.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Everyone but trump by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who would be stupid enough to do something like this?

      Trump can't even keep his mouth shut long enough to save himself from criminal liability or resist to the urge to give Russian government the location of U.S. nuclear submarines.

      Any spy who reports directly to trump is a dead man walking.

      You're assuming these spies would be spying on governments hostile to the administration.

      I think a more likely purpose for these spies is to collect dirt on domestic political actors and to provide back-channels to foreign governments that are secure from monitoring from the US government.

      Both of these might put the spies at risk of criminal liability in the US, but the people and institutions they'll piss off are generally not the ones that go around ordering hits.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Everyone but trump by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

      This word credible, I do not think you know what it means...

  11. Exactly. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is basically a private secret police agency with no lawful oversight from the courts and Congress. Awful idea.

    1. Re:Exactly. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it report into the same CIA director? So not private. And we know about it? So not secret. And it's a spy agency? So not police. So, yeah, every word in "private secret police" is wrong.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Exactly. by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Doesn't it report into the same CIA director? So not private

      No, that's baloney. "not private" means "authorized by Congressional law and, usually funded by appropriation, and subject to Congressional & judicial oversight".

    3. Re:Exactly. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Congress holds the purse strings, so this agency won't be funded unless they want it to be, meaning whatever oversight they desire. Personally, I don't see the point in having both this new thing and the CIA at the same time - if the CIA isn't working, and can't be fixed, get rid of it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Exactly. by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't it report into the same CIA director? So not private. And we know about it? So not secret. And it's a spy agency? So not police. So, yeah, every word in "private secret police" is wrong.

      Here's a hint: Secret police aren't police, they're spies. Otherwise they'd just be "police". The "secret police" part just means they have the power to make you disappear, permanently.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  12. What could go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Intelligence gathered by private spies financed by Trump donors, targeting areas like Iran and North Korea

    The best "intelligence" money can buy. Would be a shame if the intelligence leads us into an unnecessary war. A real $hame.

  13. How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is this legal? No really, how could this even begin to work. Let's take a simple argument avoiding Constitutional law on which I am no expert but I can't see this passing the sniff test there either... spies like to get paid. The Executive Branch requests a budget and Congress funds what they want. The CIA, NSA, NRO etc have been authorized as expenses by Congress. But a private spy network that is outside Congressional oversight? Does Trump really think that will pass? Remember they need 60 votes in the Senate for that. And I think some Republicans (Rand Paul) might chafe at that.

    1. Re: How is this legal? by kainewynd2 · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m pretty sure itâ(TM)s not legal. Iâ(TM)d have to guess that if this is real, theyâ(TM)re relying on the fact that Congress and the Senate are pretty much giving the administration a pass on damn near everything. (At least they forced Russian sanctions down his throat).

      --
      I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
    2. Re:How is this legal? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's legal to make up whatever you want and slap it as an article on a website. Especially if it's highly partisan and will bring in lots of ad impressions.

      Or did you mean the made-up bullshit? The legality of that is really kind of irrelevant, since it's just Trump Derangement Syndrome ranting. Fools can gibber, it's even sometimes therapeutic.

    3. Re:How is this legal? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The Agency could self fund through Civil Forfeiture, Gun running, drug running , balckmail/extortion and corporate espionage.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  14. Forgive me if I wait until a credible source by wfrazee2004 · · Score: 2

    Both the linked article and its in turn linked source are of dubious integrity, and have highly questionable histories of independent/original reporting. The presentation here at minimum smacks of over-reach and speculation. Our intelligence services - and those of every other country - already do exactly this. So does wikileaks, which is frankly a private intelligence service in all but name. So if the simple story here is "Erik Prince to run privately funded PatriotLeaks" that's a far cry from a US government sponsored "replace the CIA" initiative.

  15. Re: Great idea by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    You have been trolled, bro.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  16. First rule of spying by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Don't announce your spying plans in public!
    But, well, I guess it is a trick ... hm, he wants us to believe he is founding a new spy company ... hm ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:First rule of spying by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      That's actually the second rule. The first rule is not to discuss the rules.

      --
      +0 Meh
    2. Re:First rule of spying by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Announce your spying plans in public! Get everybody hot and bothered about them! And in the background, where people might not notice, do something else that really matters. Have you noticed that there's a tempest in a teapot about something stupid EVERY F'ING TIME something major goes down a few days later?

  17. Re:You guys break me up by PmanAce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are you bringing in the left when it has nothing to do with the article? Deflecting blame is not a valid counterpoint strategy.

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  18. So wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The nation with the most powerful army in the world needs to hire mercenaries. The nation with the biggest spy network and arguably the most shady shit in the clandestine operations needs a ghost network of contracted spies. What the hell is going on here? How does this Make America Great Again? Generally there's a hard enough time rooting out double agents in traditional spy networks, why won't this happen here? Why would they report to the CIA boss who has a perfectly good agency working underneath him? Anybody else think this is a terrible idea?

  19. Re:You guys break me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So your "solution" is a private spy network with even less accountability? YOU ARE A RETARDED CUNT.

  20. This just keeps getting weirder by orgelspieler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How am I just now learning that Betsy DeVoss's brother is the Blackwater guy?! Erik Prince has a soul of pure, black, unadulterated evil. This whole thing is so fucking strange. If they think the CIA is that bad, why not fire everybody and hire new people? Is it even legal for the president to have a personal, private spying apparatus? No congressional oversight? No judicial review? Sure seems like a unconstitutional and unconscionable idea to me!

    1. Re:This just keeps getting weirder by hey! · · Score: 1

      What you are looking at is the emergence of a politically dominant hereditary aristocracy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:This just keeps getting weirder by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      Ah, but a hefty estate tax and heterodox media would prevent that... ! :(

    3. Re: This just keeps getting weirder by ody · · Score: 1

      We have lots of Congressional oversight! The problem seems more that the "oversight" in question is currently done by a group of plutocrats who recently declared the crimes of pedophilia, sexual assault, obstruction of justice and treason (although NEVER abortion) are actually pretty okay as long as they further their agenda.

    4. Re:This just keeps getting weirder by Eldaar · · Score: 1

      There is definitely a connection between Trump, Prince, and DeVoss (https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/18/scahill_blackwater_founder_erik_prince_the). It is Robert Mercer, who, as I understand, stepped in to fund a major pro-Trump PAC late in the general election. Mercer has had ties to Prince for some time, as well as a number of other people Trump has brought into his administration (formally or otherwise).

      As best as I can tell, Trump is in part doing the bidding of Mercer and his allies.

    5. Re:This just keeps getting weirder by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      How am I just now learning that Betsy DeVoss's brother is the Blackwater guy?!

      Because you took your eye off what's been going on in politics. Seriously, almost anyone who isn't a low-information voter knew this long ago.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:This just keeps getting weirder by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Lets move to a wealth tax system and abolish income tax. Charge a 5% wealth tax on net worth. Watch the billionaire rats run for the exit and then close the exit with a an expatriation tax of also 5%.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  21. Re:You guys break me up by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Deflecting blame is not a valid counterpoint strategy

    It is not valid, but it's been pretty effective for about a year so far.

  22. Re:You guys break me up by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't reform. This is privatization. This is taking an apparatus that is already basically beyond oversight, and putting it under the direct control of an unstable dictator who cannot tell fact from fiction. Just because we think the CIA is bad doesn't mean it can't get worse.

  23. Re:Great idea by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    "If the liberals weren't so racist against Russians"

    When did being Russian become a definable race?

  24. "Deep State"? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Everytime I hear that my ears perk up. It's the kind of crazy conspiracy stuff that crazy dictators have used for years to breed distrust in Democracy so they can 'temporarily' supplement it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:"Deep State"? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IMHO, the "deep state" is really the "normal government" of the USA. The reason Trump and friends are always droning on about it is because many of the ideas Trumps wants to do (or at least the way he thinks these ideas should be done) are mostly illegal, or at least highly unethical and so far outside the bounds of civilized discourse it's ridiculous. Trump is so used to being the "CEO", saying "get this done now" and it just happens; not needing to care who is financing what, or whom he is actually employing...he just can't adapt to the idea of "checks and balances" and "procedures".

      Erik Prince is treading on some very dangerous ground going up against the CIA like this. His overseas contractors will be open-season targets, outside of any Geneva Convention protections, and he himself might end up being a target for some type of "accident". "Edge of the knife" and all.

    2. Re:"Deep State"? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, the concept of a "state within a state" or a "military-industrial complex" didn't originate with the conspiracy theorists, they just picked it up and applied it selectively to state officials they don't agree with.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  25. SS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    trumps SS will they put the jews in camps?

    1. Re:SS by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Wrong persecuted minority (which is not to say many of Trump's more extreme supporters wouldn't push for that.) Trump has focused on Mexican immigrants and Muslim refugees as the go-to scapegoats to be demonized.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  26. Re:Vice reports from an anonymous source by orgelspieler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has been reported in other, more reputable sources. I don't know why /. went with Vice. Basically, the official line from Trump's people is that there is no way in hell he would agree to this. Seeing as how the guy's sister in in the cabinet, I bet there will be more of this story coming out. My guess is that Trump will tweet about what a great guy Erik Prince is, and what a true patriot Ollie North is, and that the CIA cannot be trusted. I guess we can't really guess what the Angry Cheeto will tweet until Fox and Friends comes out with their version of the story, though.

  27. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The same time Mexicans and Muslims did.

  28. Re:You guys break me up by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't have to be liberal to have a moral problem with assassination of foreign leaders.

    Any sane person who complains about American intelligence agencies is going to focus on the the lack of oversight and accountability. The transparency and accountability will be far, far worse for private intelligence service that reports only to the President.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  29. Re:Great idea by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    His english not so good. They have him training on Slashdot because of high vocabulary nerds and nobody else goes now there.

  30. FARK is a paid shill safe space! by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    I am most definitely not Russian, but I find your comments highly offensive.

    Just because slashdot is full of liberals doesn't mean it's a place for politically correct snowflakes like yourself.

    Have you tried FARK? That's another dying 2000s website and they go well out of their way to accommodate emotionally handicapped paid posters. Be they Slav, Indian, Chinese, or Pinoy. FARK is a safe and inclusive place for paid shills of all colors and nationalities!

  31. Maybe just have that civil war already by swb · · Score: 1

    It seems like it would be cheaper and we'd settle a lot of this shit for at least 50 years, maybe longer.

    1. Re:Maybe just have that civil war already by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >It seems like it would be cheaper and we'd settle a lot of this shit for at least 50 years

      It's not impossible that it'll come to that, but I hope it's unlikely. War is nasty business, and a lot of innocent people generally get traumatized, maimed, or dead... and it really only solves the problem if one side is obliterated. I mean, c'mon, you still have people who resent losing the previous civil war and I think it's safe to say enough time has passed that shouldn't be a thing anymore.

      On the other hand, with every additional bit of crazy the POTUS does without being stopped because of an 'R'... it seems that much more likely that eventually blood will need to be shed to remove the entrenched powers. Keep in mind, it's the right that tends to be more fanatical about their guns and going to organized war while the left tends to sporadically breed terrorists. It absolutely would not be pretty or short if the USA fell into civil war, and I think you're still well within range of correcting things with the legal system and the ballot box.

    2. Re:Maybe just have that civil war already by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced it's about which "side" would win, but about the catharsis that would result.

      Unfortunately I think that we're so far down the road of mistrust and hatred that it would probably have to get pretty close to actual civil war for people on both sides to see how far off the deep end they really are and what the consequences of continuing that path might mean.

  32. Re:Great idea by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    ...If the liberals weren't so racist against Russians

    "Russian" in this context is a nationality. While "Race" was once used to distinguish people by language, location or politics, that custom disappeared several hundred years ago. Perhaps the gulag's educational system has not kept up?

    Sidenote: when I was a kid I was bombarded with talk about them "Ruskies" and "Commies" from hard-core Republican adults. They wished that General George Patton had continued fighting at the end of WW II and leveled Moscow.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  33. Impeach. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Impeach impeach impeach! Get that crazy fucker outta there! 8-(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re: Impeach. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Well right now there's violation of the emoluments clause, soon there might be obstruction of justice, and we'll have to see if there's anything criminal about colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. He doesn't even need to have committed a crime, he could be impeached for mental incompetence.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re: Impeach. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh one more thing, while many Americans would happily tell you that the US is not a democracy but a democratic republic, I would now argue that the US is not even partially democratic since fewer people voted for the winner of the last election than a losing candidate. The US is more timocratic than democratic since the value of a person's vote is weighted by the amount of unused land around them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Impeach. by ghoul · · Score: 1

      He is not going to be impeached as long as the Republicans need him to sign the Tax bill. BTW I think he will keep delaying it to protect his position.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    4. Re:Impeach. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, but is Trump smart enough to realize that the promise of the tax bill is his lifeline?

      On the topic of that tax bill, it seems the Republicans are getting ready for the endgame of capitalism. You don't put a tax bill like that through if you expect society to keep running for another 10~20 years. It's a final attempt to rake as much money into the pockets of the 1% as possible before the shit hits the fan.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  34. Re: trump dat bitch by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    No, you're just an idiot A.C. crapflooding Slashdot.

    Why is this even a topic on Slashdot? More clickbait from mishmash? I looked at the article and it appears to be a spun up fabricated nothing-burger. Not even credible enough to be buzzfeed fodder.

    Have you really sunk this low, slashdot owners?

  35. DO NOT BE RACIST TO PAID SHILLS! by i286NiNJA · · Score: 2

    I think it's very racist of them to assume you're a slav when all we know for certain is that you're posting from a smoky internet cafe for peanuts in order to support your starving family.

  36. Re:trump dat bitch by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Plenty could go wrong. But there is also a lot wrong with the existing system.

    The CIA/DIA/NSA are notoriously weak in HUMINT.

    There are also benefits to not depending too much on one channel, or you may end up with another Kim Philby situation.

  37. Ah yes, the "Deep State." by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    "I want unlimited power as if I was a king, and there are all these checks and balances! I'm just going to call it the Deep State when I'm not given total power."People with jobs don't like it when I appoint superiors with the directive to shut down their department! Wah wah."

  38. Re:trump dat bitch by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    I think Hitler had something like this, no?

    Yes. He had Garbo, who provided him with detailed information about the upcoming Allied invasion of Calais.

  39. No chance. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No way in hell will something like this fly in the USA.

    I imagine trump sits in his bed at night, under the covers with his smartphone, and dreams up things just like this as ways to troll the media, so he can point fingers and cry fake news later.

    But then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like this might have been the plan all along. Suddenly all the bananas bullshit of the past year and half starts to make sense when viewed through a "spin up the secret police" filter.

    Seriously, if this comes to pass, it's time to start looking at the 2nd amendment solution.... and I don't say this lightly. Once something like this is a thing, people start falling into unmarked vans and black bags.

    How far we have fallen.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:No chance. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Once something like this is a thing, people start falling into unmarked vans and black bags.

      You might be the first if the regular secret service doesn't get around to giving you an interview before Trump's unaccountable network of mercenary spies is in place!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:No chance. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      The ability to be critical of government power in public is pretty important in the this country, and has been so since 11/15/1791. So important in fact, that we wrote it down just the the right of the number one.

      You might be the first if the regular secret service doesn't get around to giving you an interview before Trump's unaccountable network of mercenary spies is in place!

      Just the sort of thing I would expect a private government goon to say. I don't expect the secret service would be very interested in my constitutionally protected criticisms unless I start printing money.

      I'm no frothing 2nd amendment screamer, and I suppose my above post may come off like that, so maybe yours is the typical media conditioned knee-jerk reaction, and not the threat of government retribution that it reads as?

      I do flex my rights as written pretty often, including my right to free speech, and have sworn an oath to defend the constitution, which kind of makes it my duty to speak up on things like this.

      Comments like yours are the very definition of "FUD" Please find some perspective from outside your moms basement. You may find some things are worth speaking up for, and others are worth fighting for.

      When you stop seeing uncomfortable discussions and comments following such scary and repugnant news, it's really time to start looking over your shoulder.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    3. Re:No chance. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I was half-joking...but I was serious that you may get an interview from the Secret Service specifically, as one of their duties is to protect the President. It's been done over milder statements.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  40. trust the private spies by Kludge · · Score: 1

    Yes, I'm sure all those "private spies" in that network will be totally trustworthy and only take $$ that they have earned...

    1. Re:trust the private spies by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. You remember the Iraqi "asset" going by the code name "Curveball", and the information he provided about weapons of mass destruction, and how useful he was to our efforts at making the middle east more stable peaceful. This will work out just as well for our new paid informants.

    2. Re:trust the private spies by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't the informant's fault, his masters had already decided they wanted a war and were just looking for someone to give them the intel they needed. They were not mislead, they mislead the UN and their citizens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  41. Ah, a Gestapo! by lylefile · · Score: 1

    That's what's been missing in the plan for global domination!

  42. People are voting for known sexual predators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    rather than the 'other party' or even better, a third party.

    The badge next to a person's name is more important than either their stated policies or character. Although the policies on both sides tend towards extremism as well, rather than focusing on bipartisan bulletpoints and letting the social movement stuff be decided by the people when they are ready (or not.)

    As to this private spy army: Look at who is involved in it Blackwater, Amyntor, the CIA director. This isn't spinning up a new spy network, this is simply taking an existing off the books intelligence network and placing it on the books. Giving legitimacy to an illegitimate network that has probably existed for 10-20 years, perhaps longer. The US has maintained extra-legal military assets outside of the country for 30-50 years, if not longer. Go look up 'Sandwind' I believe they used to be called... based out of Bermuda or the Bahamas. They were a primarily US ex-military mercenary unit that was incorporated off-shore to avoid US legal issues surrounding mercenaries while still being close enough to provide rapid deployment under covert US led and financed orders.

  43. Wow! by budsetr · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong? While we are at it how about setup a network of privately funded nuclear weapons? We can't trust the bureaucracy in the Pentagon with WMD's.

  44. Re:Is it April 1st by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Every day is April 1st now, and all the jokes are real!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. Sociopaths are going to put this guy on a pedestal by BadTuna · · Score: 2

    17 spy depts that we pay for and he want to create yet another one? That answers only to him?

      How far is the batshit allowed to go before he is removed? How many definitions of the word narcissist need to be explained?
    How long before he wants to change 'President' to 'Utmost Supreme Leader"?

    --
    Your sig here!
  46. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't think maybe they call Trump a racist because he declared there were many very nice white supremacists?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  47. Re:Great idea by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > "Russian" in this context is a nationality

    This never stops liberals when they want to call someone a racist.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  48. Re:trump dat bitch by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    PRIVATE spies who report only to tRump and cronies?
    The problem isn't a Philby, the problem is tRump!!!
    He wants another gov't paid spy system?
    Use the CIVIL SERVICE TO HIRE THEM and make them report to Congress!

  49. Re:Great idea by jbengt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a false equivalency. It used to be true that both parties helped the rich donors while placating their voters, but they had core sets of values that they would more-or-less adhere to when push came to shove. There's a huge difference between Trump's "Republican" party and the old Republican and Democratic parties, and it's not and improvement to abandon all sense of truth and decency, eliminate as many checks and balances as possible, call reality "fake news", and lie so much and so blatantly that it almost becomes normalized..

  50. Re:Great idea by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    Did you cash your Putin check today, apparatchnik?

  51. Re: trump dat bitch by zieroh · · Score: 1

    Have you really sunk this low, slashdot owners?

    I think we all know the answer.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  52. Re: Great idea by jbengt · · Score: 4, Informative

    there's no shortage of Americans calling Trump "racist" because he purposed a ban on Muslim immigration from certain countries, or because he wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico.

    That's not why people know him to be a racist.

  53. Can't trust the CIA? by Heebie · · Score: 2

    Of course Dump and his administration cannot trust the CIA. The CIA's mission is to take out enemies of the United States of America. Dump and his entire administration *ARE* enemies of the United States of America. There is no way in hell that a PRIVATE army of spies should ever represent the interests of the U.S. or any other nation on the planet. PRIVATE spies CAN BE BOUGHT... at least, if not more, easily than ones that legitimately work for the government. This idea should be killed by congress and the courts before it gets off the ground... but it probably won't be. :(

  54. What Subpoena's are for by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    The spy agencies were created, because we as a group needed a way to get information from other groups for our common causes.

    Subpoena's are supposed to cover this gap whereas you can subpoena a private company, get private data and turn them into your spies for a minute.

    --
    "Throw all of the tea over" - Samual Adams

  55. And Which Hostile Countries Might Those Be? by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

    The White House is reportedly looking at a proposal to create a ghost network of private spies in hostile countries

    Since +/- 65% of Americans are hostile to The White House, I'm guessing that The U.S.A. is high on the list

  56. ... because two Santa Clauses ... by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    why is it whenever Benghazi is mentioned no one ever looks at the fact that a Republican controlled Congress slashed the security budget for the State Department?

    I don't know if this applies to Benghazi but what the Republicans normally do is make sure that any spending cuts manifest themselves on the Democrat's watch. They are doing the same thing with the current tax cut. I believe it is called the "Two Santa Clause" strategy. Both parties have a Santa Claus, Republican Santa and Democrat Santa. What the Republicans must do is send in Republican Santa Claus, run up a huge deficit by having Republican Santa promise people massive and popular tax cuts, then defer the financing of those tax cuts until the democrats are in power and force them to shoot their Santa Claus to pay for Republican Santa's largesse. This theory was popularised by a guy called Jude Wanniski back in the late 1970s and the American electorate and the Democrat party are still falling for it, with Obama being the latest victim. Remember how the Republicans screamed their heads off over Obama's policies causing deficits that he actually inherited from the Bush administration? ... that was the Republicans forcing Obama to shoot Democrat Santa to pay for the presents handed out by Republican Santa (and if you don't believe me get a Republican strategy lesson straight from the horse's mouth). Apart from defeating Republican tax cut bills, the only way out of this would seem to be for the Democrats to become just as fiscally irresponsible as the Republicans and continue deferring the spending cuts in some way and dump them in the lap of the next Republican administration. Either that or mount a grass roots revolution, dump their current leadership, read Machiavelli and the Republican playbook, fight back and get massively better at communicating with the electorate but that seems about as likely to happen as a dog laying an egg and that egg hatching into a unicorn.

    1. Re:... because two Santa Clauses ... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I think history shows that the Democrats chose the path of not passing any budget at all. Nothing beats plausible deniability in politics. "Nobody knows who shot Santa. Here's a toy, kid."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:... because two Santa Clauses ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      History shows that Democratic Presidents run smaller deficits than Republicans, and least since 1981.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. In Open Source Terms by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    Trump just forked the CIA. Sort of like LibreOffice and OpenOffice but with guns.

  58. Re: Great idea by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not just the Gulag; there's no shortage of Americans calling Trump "racist" because he purposed a ban on Muslim immigration from certain countries, or because he wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico. This wanton abuse of the word "racist" is quite common.

    Or maybe they're not-subtly saying that he's racist and proposing a ban on Muslim immigration because Muslims are predominantly Arab, and proposing to build an ineffectual and costly wall between the US and Mexico to tap into anti-Latino racism?

    Seriously, it should be transparently obvious to everyone that Trump is racist because of the things he says and does, but it's not entirely his fault. He did grow up during the era of segregation. It's pretty likely that he was taught at an early age that blacks were inferior to white people. That type of mental damage can be hard to unlearn, and Trump doesn't like ever admitting that he was wrong, so fat chance of a sincere change of heart on his part, especially at his age.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  59. Trump the First by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Give the white house a private army / spy network / whatever else controlled exclusively by the president, and it will still be there for the next president.

    If you give Trump a private army / spy network / whatever, there would be no next president. Do you for one second think that Trump would step down from power if he had a private army? He has been attacking established intelligence agencies, The FBI, the free press, and grabbing power where ever he can. Even Nixon, one of the most arguably corrupt presidents we have ever had took six years to come to a point where he stated that a president cannot break the law because he is above it. Trump is defending his actions in under a year. You give this guy an inch and you will have America's first dictator.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Trump the First by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Facts not in evidence.

      We've seen Trump devolve more power BACK to Congress than any President in recent history (if ever). The whole DACA thing. Listen to what the President actually said, and not what Rachel keeps whispering in your ear. He said that is a rule for Congress to make. It is not a power that the President has to implement.

      The Waters of the United States issue was a clear power grab by Obama. It doesn't matter where you stand on the EPA. That was clearly a power grab. Trump has been trying to reverse that and push any decision back to Congress.

      There are plenty of other examples, described by writers more eloquent than I, but, they don't fit your agenda...so, there's that.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Trump the First by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure, give him a private army. That way, when the real army steps in to defend the Constitution, which it will, lots of Trump fans will get killed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  60. Make Cheka Great Again by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    someone has to say it

  61. Re:trump dat bitch by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Second term for one thing.

  62. Re: Great idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they're not-subtly saying that he's racist and proposing a ban on Muslim immigration because Muslims are predominantly Arab

    Only about 15% of Muslims are Arab.

    Also Arab isn't a race, either, so that's a double fail there.

    and proposing to build an ineffectual and costly wall between the US and Mexico to tap into anti-Latino racism?

    "Latino" also isn't a race. Neither is "Hispanic", any more than "Anglo" is.

    Seriously, it should be transparently obvious to everyone that Trump is racist because of the things he says and does

    When you have no clue what the words "race" and "racist" mean, I suppose it is. It's also wrong.

  63. Re:trump dat bitch by ranton · · Score: 1

    I think Hitler had something like this, no?

    So did Woodrow Wilson.

    Yes, and I would hope most Americans would think laws such as the Sedition Act of 1918 would be considered appalling by modern standards as well. I hope no one mentions to Trump what the Sedition Act was because he would love it.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  64. Re:Great idea by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, reminds me of someone who was a proponent of something called "The Big Lie".

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  65. I imagine this is a non-starter by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    I can't see how this could be accomplished via normal government funding. Even black budgets have some level of congressional approval, literally nobody in congress is willing to write Trump a check for his own private spy agency. The best they could do is hand out some short term contracts, not create their own agency.

    BONUS CONSPIRACY THEORY

    A "private intelligence agency" could produce some really impressive results for cheap if all they needed to do was launder information from some other intelligence organization funded by a government.

    1. Re:I imagine this is a non-starter by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Question is, with the amount of money and/or credit that Trump has, can his family write their own checks?

    2. Re: I imagine this is a non-starter by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Fortunately he is too greedy for that. He didn't even pay for his election campaign but stole money from it.

  66. At least he wouldn't have to start from scratch by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I'm sure his friend, the Little Russian Spymaster, is helping him out immensely with the initial planning.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  67. Re:The comments here are TERRIFYING by caseih · · Score: 2

    Yes, but what is truly terrifying is that there's a non-zero chance that the fatalists are right. Everything *has* changed with Trump, and not for the better. Even the most far-fetched conspiracy theories are now a tiny bit plausible. I for one have no doubt that Trump actually talked with some people about this idea. I do not believe, however, that it came to anything or will come to anything.

    Before Trump there was a certain decorum, gravitas, and respect with which the president acted, both before fellow citizens, and with nations and leaders abroad. The US was respected and feared because of this, despite the rapid changing of power between the major parties over the last 100 years. Conspiracy theories had no weight, because of this respect. Despite party politics, the US could be depended on to act in ways that were beneficial to US interests, but also benefited the rest of the world. That has all changed now, and no one knows from moment to moment what Trump might do or say. This breeds intense anxiety in the world and at home.

    Trump has also given license to people to express freely their baser natures, to the detriment of all. And this is actually what the evil is.

    As a moderate I'm very disturbed by the affects of Trump's presidency on the nation. Seems like everyone is being forced to take an extreme side. The middle is getting quite lonely and increasingly under scorn.

    Also what disturbs me is that otherwise rational American citizens would rather vote for men of dubious reputation and open allegations of sexual assault, than vote for someone of the other party. This ties directly back to Trump and what he's started.

  68. newspeak by multi+io · · Score: 2

    Under Trump, "deep state" is code for "rule of law". -- David Frum

  69. Re:trump dat bitch by eliphalet · · Score: 1

    The secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

  70. Re: trump dat bitch by Canbot · · Score: 1

    We already have the CIA, NSA, etc. The president changes, these guys stay the same. They are far more dangerous than anything Trump can do in his 4 years.

  71. Flee reality much? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    This is just the logical next step for someone so self-delusional - representing equally delusional and cowardly people - that he actually believes the latest lie out of his mouth, even if it contradicted the one before it.

  72. Re:Unfortunately, you used up your bullets already by hey! · · Score: 1

    Remember "peace with honor" and Kissinger's secret Vietnam peace plan? Of course not. You obviously aren't old enough to remember Nixon.

    The anti-war stuff didn't empower Nixon, they constrained him to do things in secret like bomb Cambodia. No doubt anti-war protests inflamed his base to the point where they'd approve of that, but Nixon had to keep it secret because he was expanding the war at a time he was forced to tell the public he was scaling it back.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  73. Fundng? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Ok, so how will they fund it? There's not a petty cash fund for creating redundant executive departments. That's a thing to watch.

    Oliver North funded the Contras with arms deals. That sounds pretty super-villainous in fact.

    --
    -Dave
  74. Re: trump dat bitch by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Hold my beer!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  75. Re:trump dat bitch by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Off the books"?!? In other words, they can spend as much as they want, and congress cannot cut off the funds, even if they are used explicitly for espionage on businesses competing with businesses owned by the Trump mob family?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  76. Trump the First by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    The Waters of the United States issue was a clear power grab by Obama. It doesn't matter where you stand on the EPA. That was clearly a power grab.

    And yet for all the slurs and barbs the right has concocted about Obama for no other reason than that he had the wrong skin color, there was a peaceful transition of power when his term was up. What reason is there to form a secret police force, other than to extra-judicially enforce the will of the president and keep him in power? The only reason to form a 'Off the Books' intelligence service is to BREAK LAWS.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  77. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    Which was a lie as every single person marching in the white supremacist side self identified as worthless scum.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  78. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    English is a language you have yet to learn at all evidently.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  79. I think the idea is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that there won't be another Democrat. Ever. Come on, you've got to start keeping up with these things.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think the idea is by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I think the democrats should just disband the party and then register as rebublicans, along with all the democrat voters. Start winning internal primaries in blue states... as republicans.

      Take it over from the inside... like Trump himself did. Then everyone is a republican, and the farce of the whole party system is evident... because they'll still have the exact same people with the exact same positions in the exact same chairs.

  80. Then you basically need to shut down by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the Republican party. Because once an idea like this is out there that's about the only thing that's going to stop it. I say that not to be partisan (though Lord knows I am) but because this idea was able to be flown in the first place and hasn't completely ended the Rebublican's mid-term elections. Seriously, you've got a party that is supposed to be in favor of limited gov't who's head (like it or not Trump's the president, so defacto head) just came out in favor of a secret police. Either the party cannot stand for that or the party is going to throw in with that. It's too extreme an idea for it to go any other way. And once a party starts trying to get something like this they're not going to stop. To do so would be to admit they did wrong, and the entire thing would unravel if they started doing that.

    The trouble with the Republican party is, oddly, Clinton (the Mr, not the Ms). Bill moved the Dems far right to form an alliance of economically right wing and socially left wing to get him into office. It worked, but it left the Republicans without an identity. So they moved right, hard right so they could establish a new brand. They're going to keep going, and this is part of that. The next step is an actual dictatorship. Trump's lawyer has already said he's above the law (e.g. that he can't obstruct justice). And now this. The Republican party cannot survive this. Well, it can, but if it does Democracy in America can't.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  81. Re:Lots of ACs by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    So run an automatic UserScript to purge the discussion threads of AC's - in today's age of information overload - there's almost no reason to waste time "listening" to anyone that isn't at least willing to post behind a pseudonym.

  82. I don't think there's anything weird about it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    this is how most democracies and through them empires die. The only difference is we've got a media reporting on it while it's happening. Damned if I can do anything to stop it. I'm knee deep in it. It's all I can do to survive.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  83. Re: Great idea by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    You have extremely well developed ideas about what does and does not constitute racism. I wonder why that might be.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  84. Re: Great idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Must be because I'm a Nazi.

  85. Of the Use of Riches by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    In vain may heroes fight and patriots rave,
    If secret gold sap on from knave to knave.

    Blest paper-credit! last and best supply!
    That lends Corruption lighter wings to fly
    Gold imp'd by thee, can compass hardest things,
    Can pocket states, can fetch or carry kings;
    A single leaf shall waft an army o'er,
    Or ship off senates to some distant shore;
    A leaf, like Sibyl's, scatter to and fro
    Our fates and fortunes as the winds shall blow;
    Pregnant with thousands flits the scrap unseen,
    And silent sells a King or buys a Queen.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  86. Re: Great idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Que?

  87. Idea Came From the Hall & Oates Administration by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    Private Spies
    They're watching you
    They see your every move
    Private Spies
    They're watching you
    Private Spies
    They're watching you
    Watching you
    Watching you
    Watching you

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  88. Re: trump dat bitch by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

    Goodwin's Law strikes fast with the Drumphf! rubes.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  89. Well, I for one... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    ... welcome our new Trump Praetorian Guard overlords. Hail President Donald Trump, Lord-God Emperor of EVERYTHING FOREVER!

    Because you know his super-secret, accountable-only-to-him will operate EXCLUSIVELY in hostile countries, right?!? Like... America, for example, when enough Americans wake up and realize what kind of... "person," for want of a better word, is "president".

    Christ... to think we have at most, (based on a human lifetime never being recorded to exceed about 117 years,) only about 45 more years of Trump being president before whichever of his kids takes over as President For Life. Now might be a good time for anyone not wanting to live under that to get out while the getting's good, because once the border walls go up, (mark my words, there'll be two,) they won't just keep other people OUT.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  90. Re: Great idea by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Well, if you say so.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  91. Re: trump dat bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Giving direct power to the president and CIA director. Surely there is no way that could be exploited? Surely, the US citizens see no problem with it, given its tradition for checks and balances as well as the constitutional right to overthrow the government/president should they amass to much power?

  92. Re:Great idea by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    When will you Americans learn to spell. It's cheque. FFS

  93. Neu Deutschland by doug301 · · Score: 1

    I heard they will name or Gestapo II

  94. Alt-intelligence expected to yield alt-facts by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    Well duh, you need alternative intelligence to tease out the alternative facts. I can be a "private spy". All I'd need to do is sit in front of my computer and pull stories out of my ass that align with alt-right conspiracy theories.

    Seriously, I read this headline as: "Trump refuses to believe ears and eyes, tries to obtain new ones."

  95. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Or I'm smart enough to figure out that "very nice people" don't say to themselves "hey, I think I'll go hang with the neo-Nazi scrum today and try to start a riot" you ignorant fucking douchebag.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  96. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Res ipso loquitor

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  97. Re:The comments here are TERRIFYING by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

    You don't get to say "the fatalists are right" when YOU ARE A FATALIST. Do you refer to yourself in the third person usually?

    You are literally blaming Trump for turning society upside down singlehandedly.
    You are blaming the one spark for the forest fire, as if hundreds of sparks weren't coming within days of the start of the fire.

    But where is the evidence of the fire? Your subjective interpretations that are really just reflections from a media narrative?

    You are severely, severely mentally ill. You have been drinking out of the media toilet far too long. You have left your humanity behind you. Bad dog!

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  98. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Also Arab isn't a race, either, so that's a double fail there.

    "Latino" also isn't a race. Neither is "Hispanic", any more than "Anglo" is.

    When you have no clue what the words "race" and "racist" mean, I suppose it is. It's also wrong.

    Race covers all three of those groups, it's a loosely used word, so you can find people referring to the Arab race, Latin race, Hispanic Race, and English race. Only pointlessly blithering pedants try to pretend otherwise, yet their very attempts to create some particular conceptualization of race are even more flawed due to their faulty insistence on a restrictive terminology that is more subject to error than the people willing to accept the loose usage of the term.

    Similarly, racist is also well known and established as a term of bigotry with some degree of ambiguity, but people are nonetheless familiar with it.

    I mean, really, if you want to lament the ambiguities of the way humans use language, in particular the English language, you can, but you'll just look stupid hanging your hat on these specific examples.

  99. Re: Great idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Heh. "Smart".

  100. Already Been Done by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Trump wants to "create a ghost network of private spies in hostile countries "? Isn't that a basic description of Wikileaks?

  101. Re: Great idea by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Heh. Plonk

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  102. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

    Usage in Hitler's psychological profile

    The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

    His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

    Hmmmm. Sounds like someone currently squatting in the White House.

  103. Re: hashtag 140 by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    No. I really don't.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  104. Too much... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Way too much power for 1 person using my tax dollars!

    Dear Mr Trump: Your insecurity is showing! Try honest, transparent, reasonable actions and see if that gains any new allies!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  105. Re:trump dat bitch by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I suppose I was naive for hoping that "off the books" meant that the government wasn't paying for it. Fooled by that "private" designation.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  106. Re:Great idea by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    I thought that government was "By the people, for the people". Here we want a billionaire to bypass the people, to bypass the CIA, and then congress and the senate.
    Give it 8 years and the USA will be more of a dictatorship than it already is.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  107. Re:trump dat bitch by NewYork · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

  108. Re:trump dat bitch by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    i think every dictatorship had something like this : the "duty" to report your fellow citizens :)
    they once had a masterplan here in the police state of belgium too, they wanted to enlist the mailmen to alert at the first sign of anything suspicious since (back then) they got to see into peoples houses as they delivered the cheques and pension funds and stuff
    privacy in hellgium is a somewhat flexible concept ... they have "neighbourhood information networks", they got popo propaganda on tv trying to make them look sympa, and i see they recently got a series of comic books on the neighbourhood police. They dont seem to understand for some reason NO ONE likes to see them coming
    and me ... well .. "for looking at a car and stuff" ... i dont trust them, they're legalized militia, not to serve anything but the lawmakers
    GET ME OUT OF HERE before i make like half of antwerp and join IS

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  109. Re: Great idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    If "Race covers all three of those groups" because "it's a loosely used word", then the original dipshit saying that people are "racist against Russians" is equally correct. Since, you know, it's a loosely used word.

    I understand that there are millions of morons who misuse the word; that does not magically legitimise it.

  110. Re:Great idea by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    There IS a reason they are called "La Raza" after all, whitebread

  111. Re: Great idea by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    1, Patton would have been slaughtered by Zukov.
    2, Communist policies did not set food prices worldwide such that 1/2 BILLION died of hunger over the 75 years of Capitalist control of food pricing via commodities exchanges (see "maximum value theorem")
    3, in fact, the Capitalist Axis powers killed far more than Mao and Stalin combined

  112. Re: Great idea by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Lie
    He in fact said there were "Good people" among them