Now she gets it?
The Associated Press news story “CIA accused of meddling in torture probe” reported that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., reacted angrily when she discovered that the CIA, an agency she has long supported, had surreptitiously searched a Senate computer network.
The senator said she had “grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated” the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Under what rock has this woman been for the last two years, when it has been widely reported and acknowledged that another of the government's secret agencies, the National Security Agency, has likewise snooped on every phone call and email that has been transmitted within the country? During that two-year interval, Ms. Feinstein, with blinders firmly in place, never voiced an objection and continued to be “one of the intelligence community's most ardent advocates,” as the story described her.
This is a classic case of “it all depends upon whose ox is being gored.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- False bravado & moral indignation
- State money wasted
- Lives that matter
- Making life better
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Open or give back
- None like him
- Happy birthday, Jesus
- About convention idea
- Charge, don’t fine
- Appalling advice