A new Church Committee?
I’ve been hearing that we need a new Church Committee. Let’s take a look at the old one.
The Church Committee in Congress was bipartisan. In fact, the committee was set up in the Senate in January of 1975 by a vote of 82 to 4. Back then, Congress was not only majority Democrat but very heavily majority Democrat, to the tune of 61-37 (and actually 62-38 with the caucus breakdown). But still, the vote was nearly unanimous to form the Church Committee.
A lot of what it investigated was foreign CIA interference in international assassinations. But some involved spying on US citizens through mail by the intelligence community, in particular the CIA and FBI, focusing on letters to China and Russia. One program called Operation Shamrock appears to have begun during WWII but continued afterwards, and involved intercepting telegrams to and from foreign countries (see this).
One of the remedies that resulted from the Church Committee was the FISA court system, intended to provide oversight. But we know how that turned out.
Looking back, the scope of the intelligence operations by the CIA and FBI involving spying on US citizens back then was small compared to what we’ve been dealing with in recent years. Power begets power, and technological improvements make it much easier to be compehensive.
The following was quite prescient. It’s from Senator Frank Church himself on August 17, 1975, when he appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press:
In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. (…) Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left: such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. (…)
I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.
We are either teetering on the edge of that abyss or we have already fallen into it.
This is a data point in how dramatically the Democrats, and the left, have changed. They no longer support freedom of speech, the right to self-defense, or freedom of religion. Other rights we used to take for granted are also under assault from the left.
Keep in mind that the Church Committee was absolutely needed, but as often is the case, it tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Much critical, legitimate capability was lost, and we paid for that over the next generation. With luck they will strike a more balanced approach this time.
Kate:
Well, back then the bulk of the surveillance was of the left. Now it’s of their opponents, and the left seems to have taken over the supervisory levels of the FBI. So now the spying is just fine with them.
And that was the technology in 1975 he was talking about. Waaay before the digital revolution. Given the capabilities now compared to then, we are probably way down in the abyss. The alphabet agencies can know just about anything they want on any person in the US. If you have a cell phone they know where you are, and all your communications. Same with any computer. Unless a person completely disconnects and lives in isolation in some remote mountain where they are self-sufficient for all their needs, the government knows.
I think the old joke goes: A guy falls off a gigantic cliff and on the way down he thinks, “Well, so far, so good!”
The implications of the now-well-established Digital Pantopticon are emerging piecemeal. But they are all consistent; all pointing in the same direction; and it’s not good.
See Ron Nessen’s comments on the Church and Pike Committee. The Ford White House respected the Church committee staff, but thought Church and other members were publicity hounds not interested in exploring serious questions. They thought Otis Pike was asking the right questions, but the committee had a crappy staff which leaked like a sieve.
The baby in this case is one of those vicious mutants in It’s Alive. The solution is to shut the FBI down on zero notice. You might be able to salvage fractions of it, but the main body of its employees should be debarred from federal employment going forward.
Conjoined to that, dramatically reduce the dimensions of the federal penal code and recalibrate sentencing.
This is a data point in how dramatically the Democrats, and the left, have changed. They no longer support freedom of speech, the right to self-defense, or freedom of religion. Other rights we used to take for granted are also under assault from the left.
By and large, professional-managerial types and word merchant types have grown less and less able to argue with people. The more sophisticated play forensic games with people and the less sophisticated respond with indignation. They also have no principles by which to evaluate fads.
Much critical, legitimate capability was lost, and we paid for that over the next generation.
How?
Art Deco on December 30, 2022 at 4:09 pm said:
Much critical, legitimate capability was lost, and we paid for that over the next generation.
How?
Those were the days when Tom Clancy thought the CIA was patriotic and CNN was an honest news source. I used to think that, too.
Outside the Beltway, I know some folks who think lawyers who participate in challenging dodgy elections SHOULD be punished. Not sure about the abyss with people like that around.
Well back in the 80s they probably were before they hired the likes of john brennan gus hall voter
I think ive mentioned shibumi by trevanian where they described a corporate intelligence leviathan called the mother company
You aren’t going to get another commission like that. The Left is firmly in control, and they like it that way. They don’t investigate their own secret police force, ever.
With all the crap that we’ve seen going down in the last decade or so, and with all that’s been revealed, you got to have to wonder if all that appears on the surface isn’t just a veneer—designed to keep us sheep from getting spooked, restless, and perhaps even looking up from the ground at our feet—and covering up what is actually going on underneath, as those who really control and run our government go merrily about their business.
“Conspiracy theories” are said to be “crazy talk,” nonsense.
But what if that’s because there are, indeed, some actual, major conspiracies in operation, and one major element of their protective cover is furthering the idea that there are no such things as real, deep, effective, or long-lasting conspiracies?
Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives
The Church Committee uncovered the MKULTRA mind control project, COINTELPRO and the CIA assassination plots — good stuff, of course.
However, the Church Committee can also be read as the Young Turks, mostly Democrats, rolling the Old Guard, i.e. it was about gaining power,
Church himself was 51 at the time. He was a progressive, environmentalist and anti-war Democrat. A year later he ran as a candidate for the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination, but withdrew and threw his support to Jimmy Carter.
I think we are pretty deep in the abyss. I can’t even imagine there being bipartisan support for doing what must be done to clean up the alphabet agencies. Most Democrats and a powerful group of Republicans don’t want to go anywhere near this mess. Many are just fine with the abuse of power and many others are too scared to say anything. And of course there is a large segment of the population that is unaware of the massive abuses of power and think anybody who is concerned is a conspiracy nut.
I think it will take a major disruption verging on societal collapse before anything meaningful is done.
“I think it will take a major disruption verging on societal collapse before anything meaningful is done.”
I think there will have to be a collapse before anything meaningful can be done. Even with what’s occured over the past 2+ years too large a percentage of the population willingly absorb the government driven MSM propaganda stream to demand change; they make accommodations and continue on. Only when everything collapses around them and causes sufficient pain will enough awareness seep in for them to acknowledge that things have changed, radically, and support what needs to be done.
Cavendish, the people you describe must come to realize that the trust they have placed all these years in the Pedestaled Elite is as misplaced as Flounder’s trust in his frat brothers.
And come to realize that – despite the additional effort and risk – the way forward is to stop selling themselves short and take back decision-making authority, and individual responsibility, for their lives and families.
The question is, how much dysfunction will it take to compel that realization?
Agree with nearly all the above comments.
Kate, don’t stop there. Democrats no longer support the constitution at all. They no longer support separation of powers (see executive order abuses and court packing) or the electoral college which is the entire basis of our republic.
They no longer support honest, free elections or the right to a secret ballot. The very basis of voting in a democracy or republic no longer exists where Democrats rule.
They no longer support national sovereignty or even the concept of a border.
They no longer support the right to counsel, the right to a trial or the right to bail. Organizations like the ACLU, that once supported the right of the Nazis to march (and without even comment the right to a lawyer), now believe that those they hate have no right to a lawyer in any capacity. Any lawyers who work for an unpopular client must be canceled.
They don’t believe that those with whom they disagree have ANY RIGHTS at all to anything. No right to have a bank account or conduct business, even if legal.
They believe that their concerns about an issue (for example: global warming or Covid) negate all of your rights, including the right to live.
As to them, they reject the concept of rule of law applying to them. They are above the law.
Here’s an interesting question….
Let’s assume (as I think that we can) that whenever a group of persons united by any ideology/worldview secure power to wield force or intrusive surveillance over other persons, they will use that power to selectively oppress persons who don’t share their ideology/worldview, to at least some degree.
In other words, their ideological commitments, however noble, don’t completely prevent power from being abused. Humans are gonna human.
The question is: Can we also assume that, IF the ideology/worldview which unites them explicitly prohibits using force and intrusive surveillance to oppress persons with other ideologies/worldviews, THEN the degree of oppression they exercise will be reduced, and it will arrive more slowly?
Or, are the ideological factors which delay/reduce oppression not a matter of one’s worldview explicitly forbidding that oppression, but of something more foundational or nuanced?
Or, is there no ideological factor which delays/reduces oppression? In other words, would a crowd of explicit Libertarians who managed to take the White House and both houses of Congress wind up normalizing oppression exactly as quickly as a crowd of Communists doing the same thing? Would a crowd of Genevan Calvinists and a crowd of Quakers be identically hasty in crossing the threshold of oppression? Would the Hasmonean Dynasty (who forcibly-circumcised the Edomites, but wound up regretting it) and Ferdinand and Isabella jump equally quickly to using Spanish Inquisition tactics, if given the same level and duration of absolute power?
I ask, because the progressives currently dominate all the functionally-autocratic institutions of our society, and that’s nasty. But I have to admit they’re not yet as nasty as actual Stalinists were (although they’re every bit as Kafka-esque), and I hope (and mostly believe) that American-style conservatives in the same positions would behave better.
So I’m asking which ideological/worldview details, if any, make for a safer crowd of potential-autocrats (while assuming that no such crowd is entirely safe).
I’m old enough to remember the Church Committee. At the time, I thought he was waaay off base.
Hindsight and all that. Now I think that he was probably understating the issue.
I don’t see how we recover from this short of a complete takedown of the entire security apparatus and a rebuild with NONE of the previous employees of the swamp. We’ll lose ‘expertise’ but since that ‘expertise’ was deployed against American citizens, it’s a price I’m willing to pay.
One other thing. When you leave gov’t service, your security clearance should be immediately canceled. There should be no crossover between security clearances granted to private companies and those that are granted to gov’t employees.
I’d like to ban the revolving door between business and gov’t. I think that would go a long way toward removing perverse incentives that are pro-corruption in their effect.
Jestor,
love the Animal House reference.
RC,
Yes. Vote for people who don’t like government and think it should be smaller. For people who say it and show it. For people who don’t want to make a career of being in office. For people who advocate term limits and abide by them. Who profess to believe that power corrupts. Who say they are suspicious of govt, of power, of concentrations of money. And when in office demonstrate the strength of their convictions in their policies and proposals.
Are they still subject to the corrupting influence of power? Sure. But those that vote for them are not going to rubber stamp their tyranny.
[not to mention that the press will hate them with a passion and be unlikely to let them get away with any corruption]
Power corrupts. It even will corrupt libertarians.
stan also demonstrates that he knows no actual democrats.
Vote for people who don’t like government and think it should be smaller.
I’ll do no such thing. I’ll vote for people who have a clear sense of what is a government function and what isn’t, and will seek to do what they can to see to it that public employees devoted to their legitimate tasks are properly recruited, trained, nurtured, compensated, and disciplined.
Art,
That’s funny. After you vote for both of them, how will you vote in the other 99.9% of elections?
Om,
That’s not funny. Or intelligible. Perhaps if you tried to communicate an intelligent thought, more people might understand you.
stan:
You are another authority who chooses to paint with buckets, not brushes: all Democrats are this and all Democrats are that.
You don’t seem to comprehend that Democrats are actually people and not a thing. You fail to understand that people change sometimes for the better and abandon failed or false beliefs. You fail to understand, it seems, the obvious example of our host’s change in political beliefs. Is neo still evil because she was once a Democrat? Are the actual real people that neo knows evil because they vote democrat?
Mistaken is not necessarily the same as evil.
Is this clear enough for you stan?
You seem to be an old timey kind of guy; a zealot. That isn’t a compliment in most cases.
After you vote for both of them, how will you vote in the other 99.9% of elections?
You advocated something stupid and destructive. Which isn’t funny. Starboard discourse on the subject of government policy is stereotyped and stale because of people like you.
I’m gonna have to get a bigger tin-foil hat.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fk3dICGX0AAMbgs?format=jpg&name=900×900
A new church committee is needed,
Unfortunately the uniparty is happy with the current situation. The 3 letter agencies help them get the-elected, don’t release anything embarrassing, and destroys their opponents.
Plus the internet/ tech / social media are helpful campaign contributors with the right politics.
om excoriates Stan at 8:54 pm who said:
“stan: You are another authority who chooses to paint with buckets, not brushes: all Democrats are this and all Democrats are that.
“You don’t seem to comprehend that Democrats are actually people and not a thing. You fail to understand that people change sometimes for the better and abandon failed or false beliefs. You fail to understand, it seems, the obvious example of our host’s change in political beliefs. Is neo still evil because she was once a Democrat? Are the actual real people that neo knows evil because they vote democrat?
“Mistaken is not necessarily the same as evil.
“Is this clear enough for you stan?”
OK Boomer om. Where is the evidence that any dissent against Ruling Class power by the mass herded Ds matters a whit to the CommieKKKrats we know and love like Big Brother?
I see none.
Show me your Special X-Ray secret decoder glasses that mean so much to you — I don’t believe you’ve got any!
While the Left came out for the New Church Committee idea after whistleblower Snowden revelations, almost of a decade ago (as the top few LINKS at Neo’s search show— this time the call for a Church Committee seems to come more from the Right— EXAMPLES:
House Republicans warming to Church-style committee to probe FBI from top to bottom24Dec22: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-republicans-warming-church-style-committee-probe-fbi-top-bottom
Kesh Patel, 4Nov22: GOP needs new ‘Church Committee’ to hold FBI, Justice Department accountable for their many abuses
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gop-needs-new-church-committee-hold-fbi-justice-department-accountable-their-many-abuses
Jonathan Turley says FBI acts as ‘Praetorian Guard’ for Biden family, calls for new Church Committee—26Dec22
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/12/26/jonathan-turley-says-fbi-acts-as-praetorian-guard-for-biden-family-calls-for-new-church-committee-1319758/
TJ:
The issue between “om” and “stan” is not about how the Democrat leaders and committed leftists feel about the run-of-the-mill Democrats. They are discussing a much-chewed-on question here, which is how to characterize those run-of-the-mill Democrat voters. Commenter stan has gone on record many times basically saying they are ALL evil. I beg to differ, and have made it clear I absolutely don’t agree, and why. It has gotten to be a tiresome discussion and I’ve stopped wasting my time trying to convince him.
But I’m pretty sure that it is that sort of thing that stan has said previously that om is referring to in this thread.
I think we’re skidding down the slope of the abyss–if an abyss can have a slope. My sense is that we’re well past the point where a new Church Committee would do any good, even if one could be formed.
I was in fact alluding to the Church Committee when I said on another thread that I remember previous attempts to “reform” the IC and how they turned out. My main takeaway is that there is no “fix” or “solution” that cannot and will not be perverted to achieve the IC’s goals. Case in point: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to fix the problem of illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens. That’s why I’m dismissive of milk-and-water calls by self-described conservatives to “reform” the FBI. Forget reforming it. Just get rid of it. There will almost certainly be attempts to reconstitute it in another guise, but that will take time. Perhaps the great national sorting-out will have taken place by then and states that value liberty will be in a position to give the feds the finger.
But don’t count on it. Stan and I have been rebuked for painting with too broad and too dark a brush and ignoring or dismissing contrary examples (e.g. of GOP attempts to fix problems with the election system *before* the 2020 election or of a few GOP politicians calling out the FBI). My response is that these examples of the GOP trying to stop the slide into tyranny are notable mostly for being feeble, ineffective, half-hearted, and rare. They merely reinforce my view that the GOP and Conservativism, Inc. have been useless in this war. And it is a war. If you doubt that, read up on the career of Mr. Marc Elias, the mastermind behind the successful and apparently irreversible “fortification” (read: corruption) of the election systems in swing states and a skillful practitioner of ruthless lawfare against anybody who challenges it. We can thank him and highly dedicated lawyers like him for the fact that today the Left owns most of the state bar associations. Neo pointed to that fact in a previous thread as an explanation for why targeted conservatives find it hard to get any legal representation at all while people on the left are lavishly lawyered. I know some conservative lawyers. They’re smart people and they understand what’s going on. They have absolutely no stomach for fighting it. They have a hundred reasons–very good ones–for not sticking their necks out. Yes, there are exceptions (e.g. Bill Jacobson at LIF), and I support them. But it’s not enough.
As for the accusation that those of us who generalize about the uselessness of the establishment GOP and the malevolence of the Democrats and the Left are guilty of sinking to the same rhetorical level as our enemies, I offer this clip from “The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” (1943):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMNDS6R4kq0
In which Prussian officer Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff (Anton Walbrook) explains the facts of modern war to British officer Clive Candy (Roger Livesey). True in 1943, true today. Here’s hoping DeSantis gets it. Somebody needs to.
Hubert:
You admit that the left has taken over bar associations and the legal profession in general, as well as much of the judicial system. You agree that lawyers who take up conservative causes, particularly in election law, are targeted and often destroyed. You also bemoan the lack of success and insufficient fight (in your opinion) of that small number of conservative lawyers willing to take on this difficult battle.
What is it that would satisfy you? What number would be enough? Do you also think you are aware of all the efforts that have been made? They usually aren’t publicized or are covered in very obscure stories that get almost no attention. What is the point, also, if the law is heavily stacked against them as in Arizona? I am somewhat stumped in trying to figure out how I would approach this is I were a legal strategist on the conservative side and what I would do that many of them aren’t doing. What would you have them do – not just in general and vague terms like “fight harder” or “be more numerous,” but specifically.
TJ:
Good to know there is another authority besides stan who knows all the workings of every heart; so young and yet so wise.
We not worthy. And certainly our failing eyes cannot percieve how awesome and wise you both are. Again, we are not worthy. (farce)
It seems that TJ like stan does not know what the words “all” or “every” mean, or “evil” for that matter.
But even so, we are not worthy.
Neo: I’m sure I’m not aware of all the efforts that have been made. Neither are you. My point is that so far they have been ineffectual. Disastrously so, in that things are getting worse, not better. This suggests that a change of strategy and tactics is in order.
You ask what would satisfy me. My satisfaction is neither here nor there, but here are some things I would like to see, ranging from the rhetorical to the practical:
1. First, a clear, unflinching statement by a leading politician on where we are and where we are heading as a country. This statement should include an explicit acknowledgment that our election and judicial systems at every level have been deeply corrupted, that the intelligence community is out of control and that we are living under a nascent or actual surveillance state, that the federal government has emerged as the greatest threat to the freedom and prosperity of ordinary American citizens, some of whom are currently being held as political prisoners on trumped-up charges–and that approximately half the population appears to be fine with this state of affairs. You may know of a sitting politician of standing who has said this. I don’t. The closest example I can think of is Tulsi Gabbard, but she is an ex-politician. Clear rhetoric is crucial for everything else.
2. On a practical level, start working the states. Hard. Build up a conservative lawfare machine in states whose bar associations have not yet been taken over by the Left. Florida is one example; North Carolina may be another. Identify successful cases of pushback and build on them.
3. At the same time, keep contesting election cases in states like AZ, MI, PA, and WI. Identify people who are willing to fight–e.g. Kari Lake in AZ–and channel support and resources to them. These cases may be losing battles, but–to revert to the military metaphor–the holding actions of 1941-1942 prepared the way for the victories of 1943-1944.
4. Also at the state level, make education a priority. Declare war on the woke support system for K-12 and higher education. Keep a sharp eye on the curriculum and insist on changes. Suspend funding, especially for schools of education. Better yet, just eliminate schools of education. Support the funding of alternative institutions. Again, build on the successes in Virginia, Nevada, Idaho, and other states.
5. Organize.
These are just a few ideas. Perhaps you and some of the commenters can come up with others.
One other point: if the existing legal systems in many states are corrupt or stacked against conservatives, circumvent them. Create rival systems in other states. And be prepared to stand up to the feds. One of the things I like about DeSantis is that he has shown a willingness to do this. Would that there were more governors like him.
Also: change the main theater of operations. D.C. is the source of most of the problems that beset us. Therefore, if you can’t control it (and I think the chances of that for our side are slim–remember the permanent federal bureaucracy), aim at reducing its power and influence. I think states and counties are where this war should be fought.
I must say I’m disappointed with the lack of intellectual engagement by Art Deco and Neo. Not from Om. The personal insults from Om are just pathetic and over the line. He’s an idiot and an ass. Om, if you are capable of communicating some kind of thought, make it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. My point — good intentions are not a defense to the charge of evil. (this is a point I have made before. If you disagree with this point, please say so and why.)
Playing God with the lives of other people is evil. It’s hubris. It’s the rejection of humility as a virtue. The Greeks taught us about it. For some, substituting one’s self for God is the ultimate evil. Indeed, Satan’s crime was seeking to replace God. (again, if you disagree, engage with the argument)
Democrats, that is the rank and file, are happy to use force against people who disagree with them. The use of force against people is the essence of the Left/liberal/Democrat.
They agree with cancel culture. They embrace the relentless slanders. They support the use of nasty, vile smears such as “racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi”. They use these smears themselves.
Democrats today are not “mistaken”. They know lies, slanders, smears and character assassination are morally wrong. They know preparing a fake dossier is morally wrong. They know prosecuting innocent people is wrong. They know holding people without trial or bail is wrong. They know seeking to disbar attorneys for representing unpopular clients is wrong. They know that denying freedom of speech is wrong. They know that ‘othering’ people is wrong. They know that denying freedom of religion is wrong. They know that Democrats in Chicago and Philly and a lot of other inner cities have been committing election fraud for many decades.
They know that the Clintons, Obama and Biden have lied relentlessly. They just don’t care.
They know that the FBI has been involved in horrific abuses of power. They know that the NSA spies on all of us and turns the databases over to Democrats to use and abuse.
They aren’t ‘mistaken’. They simply believe, as someone else noted in a comment recently, that disagreeing with Democrats is unacceptable and must be stamped out. They believe that others should not have the right to a different opinion.
Am I painting too broadly? Should be simple to prove. Just show the many opinion pieces of Democrats who disagree with the crimes and abuses of the Democratic establishment. Show me that the staffs of the NY Times, Wash Post, and the rest of the news media aren’t monolithic in their views. Same for the Big Tech titans. Show me the disagreements in the comment sections of lefty publications. Show me the disagreements on the left among college faculties. You can’t.
Bari Weiss, Greenwald and Taibbi aren’t just lonely. They are vilified. Where are rank and file Ds who agree with them?
The Dem elites are evil. Their rank and file support them vigorously. If you have evidence otherwise, by all means lay it out. If you can’t, the “mistaken” canard is done.
Hmm
https://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2022/12/steps-taken-to-cancel-out-voices-which.html?m=1
stan writes a tome; brevity and wit, stan, are lost on you it seems.
But at the last sentance stan admits that there may be a thing that isn’t “all,” an “elite” Democrat. All democrats can’t be in the “elite” group or can they stan?
Nope, but it doesn’t matter in stan land. Kill them all and God will sort out ….. the degree of evil, eh, stan?
“We” may be making progress, or it’s another one of stan’s own goals.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of (all democrats) men? stan. He ain’t no Shadow, stan knows them all.
We are not worthy.