General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlan Grayson: Member Of Congress Asked NSA For Their Dossier - Answer Was NO - Not, We Don't Have It
On The Young Turks, Alan Grayson commented that one member of Congress asked the NSA if they would share their dossier on him with him, and their answer was "no". As Grayson put it, "They didn't say they didn't have one."
Cenk and David Sirota talk to Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida about the House vote to continue funding NSA collection of phone records and what motivates politicians to uphold unpopular policies like domestic surveillance. The division is between people of principle and people who are scared, Grayson explains. Theyre not so much scared of the political consequences of voting one way or another, theyre scared that there might be some kind of terrorist attack and that theyll be blamed for it because they werent in favor of domestic surveillance.
VIDEO HERE:
http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/fear-and-money-motivate-congress-to-vote-for-domestic-surveillance
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... that the NSA - and their outsourcing partners - have dirt on them and are afraid of that being exposed.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And so does the rest of the infinite intel apparatus.
I wish the Congressman had sent a formal FOIA request. As Grayson intimated, if there's an NSA file on a Congressman, then it would be interesting to see how that's justified in light of the requirement that it be connected to a foreign target of surveillance. How many active terrorist targets does the Congressman know, I wonder? I'll bet the NSA does have a file on him, and doesn't have a legit target.
I also wish all the Congresspeople would refuse to vote for any reauthorization until each of them gets all the answers they want.
Whenever I see stonewalling, that reads to me as a big, guilty, red flag. Until NSA comes clean, my assumption is they are guilty of all kinds of gnarly stuff we don't know about yet. (And the stuff we do know about is outrageous enough already.)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)whoever really runs this nation.
Scary when the person we're voting for as Head of the Executive Branch is not the person really in charge.
blm
(112,919 posts)I imagine he made sure there was plenty that Carter would never see.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)That he seems to have personally taken care of.
Your point is well taken- if we've seen any part of the real Shadow Gov't, it's the Bushes.
Chiyo-chichi
(3,563 posts)"Carter sounded truly stumped by the contention that Bush had told him he lacked proper clearance to review the files. 'I have not heard it before,' he repeatedly told members of the New England Skeptical Society."
At least according to this: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071108/BLOG32/71108036
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's mind-boggling to see the conspiracy of the "CIA running things instead of the President" here.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If a Gutless Wonder won't even stick up for their rights, what are the odds that they will stick up for ours?
millennialmax
(331 posts)As with most security mechanisms, the aim is to make it difficult for unauthorized access to occur, without inconveniencing legitimate access. Need-to-know also aims to discourage "browsing" of sensitive material by limiting access to the smallest possible number of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Assuming it's accurate of course, a remarkably silly assumption.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Defense attorneys and defendants? Presidents?
Please! No self-respecting police state would allow that.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they need it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)God it's nice to have at least a few politicians with some courage.