All in all, if you're not following the story closely (i.e., reading the actual source materials), it appears that the vast majority of the mainstream press absolutely misled its readers in implying that Feinstein said the CIA hacked her staffers' computers and that Brennan then denied her allegations.
It would be a surprise if most of the mainstream media actually got something right.
On the other hand, I wonder how Feinstein will deal with the weasel words now that she is the receiving "harmed" end.
This is a perfectly reasonable role for a secret court.
Am I the only one that thinks that any court being secret is an aberration in the first place?
It makes perfect sense to keep some parts of trials confidential to some point to avoid issues with the whole process at times much like some investigations need to be kept secret to prevent the criminals from maneuvering away from them, trampling with them etc. But after all is said and done and a proper time frame has passed (or the reason to keep it secret has disappeared) then all proceedings must be made public. This is the only way that the public will be able to scrutinize such proceedings and eventually fix abuses and issues that may have arisen. Secret orders, secret proceedings etc cannot be discussed. Sure you need to preserve tactics and a few details when talking about intelligence or military operations but only to a degree. Otherwise it will be abused.
On a side note, I've read a Cracked article recently telling how there will be no more war heroes anymore and one thing struck me: war vets were idolized to the point many were thrown into politics even though they had no experience in it. It may not be a really wrong thing (sometimes there are other characteristics that make up for the lack of experience or things are too new as it was with Lincoln) but this might explain why the US has such militaristic inclinations nowadays with the defense and law enforcement parts ruling all the rest. Again I'm no expert in American history but it caught my attention..
I wonder, if we go to the extreme and make it law to store anything and everything data related indefinitely if the system won't collapse under its own weight (both financially and due to the abuses).
Anyway, considering all the VERY recent historical examples of why this is a bad idea I'd say Americans need to review what's being taught in their schools regarding History. It seems the generation currently in power fails at it.
We tend to have contact with many different, unimportant people in our lives by chance or due to some business that we either won't be seeing again or we will connect on very specific matters, not knowing a damn about what they do in their lives. Case point: my brother-in-law is a convicted drug dealer. I barely have any contact with him but he is a relative of my girl and thus I have a connection that can be explored even though I've never even touched anything illegal (weed or otherwise, including my "pirate" downloads that are fully legal here). He's the only case in the family that "went wrong". This could be used against me since I do have him on my facebook and we've had contact, albeit brief, before. Hell, if the owner of the pizzeria next home does something wrong and you always buy there you already have an issue. And that's why both due process and privacy are important. In a through investigation law enforcement will come to the conclusion that there is no relation between the individuals other than the pizza or the family ties. But ill intentioned officials may use it to turn your life into living hell. Stasi.
When asked what has Nathan learned from this incident, Entingh paused, then scoffed: "He's learned never to make his fingers like a gun a school again. I don't know if you consider that a life lesson."
You are not dealing with functioning adults. If you were, as I said in a reply to another reader this wouldn't have escalated. His dad is a functioning adult. He just need to take it to the courts for a full win.
What is Mr Pompeo's relationship with the big military and security corporations, financial or otherwise? Has he ever received money or other compensation from any lobbying effort, in cash or in-kind, and will he provide bank statements to support his answer to this question?
Why should the audience at SXSW find credible a letter from a man who broke his oaths [towards upholding the Constitution] and deliberately deceived not only his employer, but his country, in order to protect unconstitutional programs?
If he ever flees the country when the people ask for the heads of those who are undermining the Constitution then I can add 2 more questions.