"they are justified if they promote national security."

That's pretty broad. I, too, remember when the Patriot Act was passed.

I see your point. If republicans on Capitol Hill put country above party the leaks probably would not have happened (Which leaks again?). I guess we got to trust them enough not to let things go too far, so ugh I think I was wrong. No leaks are permissible -- at least that I can think of. Thanks.

Ok, well no leaks being permissible (from the 'deep state') means i've got an answer to my, 'what if' they (the 'deep state') go on to orchastrate a soft coup...

(Raises questions over whether they has assassination previous presidents who opposed them, notably JFK) but the implication is the Democrats should not side with the Deep State actors, because empowering them is a bigger threat to democracy than even Trump's presidency...

The underlying assumption is that Ryan McConnell are not complicit else coup has already occurred.

We have to be careful about this whole "deep state" thing. I am honestly surprised by the furore around the Wikileaks revelations of what the CIA can do. I mean, the CIA are spies...I don't get why it's a surprise, or even a bad thing, that they can spy on people.

It's kind of like the problem of the "standing army." The British and early Americans worried about letting the king have an army that existed between wars, because of the danger that he would use it to oppress his subjects. The US has had a standing army for generations and it's widely accepted because it's understood that the government won't use against American citizens it doesn't like. Obviously it's easier to get away with hacking an American city than invading it, but there's no evidence that these tools were actually used inappropriately. Our government has, and needs, powers that can be misused, and all we can do is work to make sure that the people who get those powers are using them appropriately.

And that's why I don't have a lot of concern about what's going on. If you think there's a "deep state," imagine what the country looks like when those powers are in the hands of people who are trying to undermine democracy.

@"all we can do is work to make sure that the people who get those powers are using them appropriately."

I disagree, we can build civil institution which have a balance of power. So your tax payers implicitally have influence iver the army because without their consent (to pay taxes) the army can't be funded.

In a state like Saudi Arabia the state derives most of its revenue from Oil sales, thus can support the army (and repress the people) without worrying about taxes.

Like the 'checks and balances' in the US political system, you can design a society around curtailing abuse of power.

'Small government' republicans would deprive the people of one of their most useful tools. (Meanwhile social democrats, with 'new deal' type entitlements go even further and make the people dependent on state subsidies.)

The balance of powers is important but it only goes so far. Our current super-secret intelligence does require involvement from all three branches of government, and that's good. But when you have such a small number of people involved and secrecy as well, there's going to be room for abuse.

Room for abuse, and room for whistle blowers to expose such abuse - like Edward Snowden. Of course he can speak for himself.

The deep state is bipartisan. Trump was elected in reaction to the establishment. The deep state is the establishment. That's why Trump is attacked by both the Democrats and elements in the GOP, such as the wack-crazy neo-cons like McCain and Graham. As for the MSM, the NY Times and their ilk are water carriers for the CIA now. Wikileaks is the most trusted journalistic outlet at present.

@eturnage, you're joking right? That is so laughably pro-Trump and pro-Russian! Please confirm.

Hes joking. He just said wikileaks is a trusted journalistic outlet.

Name one thing wikileaks has published that isn't true.

Unbelievable. Black is white in liberal loony land.

mitomons idea of a 'trusted journalistic outlet' is one that tells lies that suit mitomon.

As soon as wikileaks gains serious credibility, someone (like russia?) will leak them specific things in an effort to further their political ambitions.

As they don't really do their own investigative journalism, they have difficulty confirming stories, as they don't have an editorial team, they don't have any implicit bias.

So the bias has to come from the leakers. Wikileaks might be used by Trump/Putin, but they can be used by pretty much anyone. (Hypothetically, i have not been following actualy detail of events, and i don't know if 'Russian Hackers' have joined the wikileaks team to 'help' them)

It is interesting to note that right-wingers who condemn Edward Snowden for leakong sensitive information, would support a site designed to facilitate the leaking of critical information. The world has turned...

How is there a bias in truth?

Some people really make me want to throw up.

'Damn this biased truth!'

i have less of a problem with Snowden leaking sensitive information, than i do how he has glamorized himself. even then, nothing to national security was leaked. future leaks... may not hold that same standard

furthermore, i've still yet to see any manipulation in Wikileaks information.... so Fielder is actually right in this one

meh.... it's a post-truth world so what does it matter if I'm right hahaha.

I want to say I genuinely believe some people are mentally ill or outright insane but I'm not allowed to say that. I don't want to say this as an insult, I am genuinely concerned for them and for society.

Literally white is black and up is down according to whatever they want to believe. This isn't healthy! Why do people enable this? I truly don't understand.

You can tell the truth without telling the whole truth, and you can time your truth bombs to do maximum damage to someone (see the DNC leaks). I'm not sure Wikileaks has an implicit agenda, but I'm confident that people providing the leaks do. It's also pretty much unquestionable that the real power in any leak comes from its media portrayal rather than the leak itself, because very few people can be bothered to sift through a primary source.

@fiedler, you can choose to reveal 'truth', and still mislead people with what you don't reveal.

I'm surprised you can't get your head around deception by ommission. (Again, i haven't been paying attention to what wikileaks or anyone else has been saying, so i'm talking entirely in the hypothetical.)

Right, so what you are saying, Orathaic and ghug, is that it doesn't matter if it's truth if it doesn't further your political beliefs and goals.

It really is just frightening how you people have no anchor of truth... if you don't like facts you just argue them away, yell over them, or SHUT THEM DOWN entirely.

Its not healthy, and no good can come from it.

No fiedler, that is nothing to do with what i'm saying. But full marks for trying.

Fiedler, people would be a lot more willing to engage with you if you actually bothered to read and respond to what they were saying.

What is truth? Is truth unchanging law?

Chug, no one on the forum engages; they just pound away hoping to beat you into submission.

Chug, a partial truth is not a truth. It is a lie.

Capt Brad, maybe you don't engage, and nobody engages you. But that doesn't make everyone like you.

Sorry I'm late. @fiedler, Wikileaks publishes only truths as far as I know. However, they are biased because they don't publish the WHOLE truth. They omit anything that hurts trump or Russia.

Oops, didn't see that orathaic was all over that point. Anyway, in Brad's defeat, he tries to support his arguments. It's just that he is so trapped by AM radio and religious dogma that he no longer can imagine another way. I believe Brad can be saved!