Intelligence committee urged to explain if they withheld crucial NSA document

[Catherina]

Related thread from 2 days ago:
"Intelligence committee withheld key file before critical NSA vote, Amash and Holt claim"

Intelligence committee urged to explain if they withheld crucial NSA document
Critics demands answers from chairman Mike Rogers after claims that committee failed to share document before key vote

Spencer Ackerman in Washington
theguardian.com, Wednesday 14 August 2013 15.30 BST


Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent, chairs the House intelligence committee. Critics have accused the committee of being too close to the NSA. Photograph: AP

The leadership of the House intelligence committee is under growing pressure to explain whether it withheld surveillance information from members of Congress before a key vote to renew the Patriot Act.

...

Now Morgan Griffith, a Republican who represents Virginia's ninth district, is calling for answers. "I certainly think leadership needs to figure out what's going on. We're trying to get information so we can do our jobs as congressmen," he told the Guardian. "If we're not able to get that information, it's inappropriate."

...

Amash told the Guardian on Monday that he had confirmed with the House intelligence committee that the committee did not make non-committee members aware of the classified overview from 2011 of the bulk phone records collection program first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden. The document was expressly designed to be shared with legislators who did not serve on the panel; it appears that a corresponding document for the Senate in 2011 was made available to all senators.

...

"If the HPSCI leadership withheld a document, intended by the administration for release to non-committee members – a document that could have led to a different outcome when the Patriot Act was reauthorized in 2011 – this is tantamount to subversion of the democratic process," said Bea Edwards, the executive director of the Government Accountability Project.

...

"There is clearly a loss of confidence in HPSCI leadership among some House members, notably including members of the majority party," added Steve Aftergood, an intelligence and secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists.

...

The panel's chairman, Mike Rogers, is a former FBI agent. Its ranking Democrat, Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, received over $220,000 in campaign contributions during his past term from the defense and intelligence industries, according to David Kravets of Wired. Both are staunch advocates of the NSA bulk surveillance programs.

...

"The constitution doesn't just say 12 members or 24 or whatever it is [on the House intelligence committee]: it says all of us have to protect the constitution," Griffith said. "It's one of our prime duties."

...

Much more to read here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/nsa-intelligence-committee-under-pressure-document

[snooper2]

1. Yo "The Guardian", if you are going to masquerade as a real news outlet

At least try a LITTLE harder LOL-


When you write things like-

"first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden"


Your bias is totally showing. I know it's HARD, but you can do it!

[hootinholler]

3. I think The Guardian has a pretty good handle on how to be a real news outlet

They've only been around since oh, 1821 or so.



Oh, and guess what? They are still independent of any big money. In fact it could be argued by someone better versed than I that they are one of the few remaining independent papers in the world.

[snooper2]

4. There should be no bias in journalism, Period

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is good FYI


This is cool to look at but basically useless LOL

[hootinholler]

5. First, What bullshit!

Many papers have always had an editorial bias which does no harm if it is known. The Guardian does not hide theirs.

Second, they are committed to facts being facts, so when they write something like: "first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden," it is a statement of fact. There is no bias in that statement.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's crap either.

[deurbano]

10. I agree, except I would change that to every paper has an editorial bias...

or at least the vast majority. (And as you say, the problem comes when they pretend they don't.)

On the other hand (again, just reiterating your point), facts are facts, so even a "biased" paper can get those right (if the facts are available... and if they want to get them right). How they interpret those facts is a different matter.

Have to agree on the "old" thing, too! (Especially as my birthday approaches...)

[David Krout]

30. says who? nt

[99th_Monkey]

13. +100 nt

[bvar22]

7. We "get it" that you dislike Snowden & The Guardian, but..

...do you have a comment or opinion on the substance of the OP,
which claims that[font size=3] the leadership of the House intelligence committee (Republican Congressman Mike Rogers) withheld surveillance information from members of Congress before a key vote to renew the Patriot Act.[/font]

What do you think about that?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised,
and am awaiting a response from the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
because this kind of stuff is IMPORTANT.


It doesn't look like US MSM Sources are carrying this story,
so chalk up another one for the foreign press.

[snooper2]

8. I thought members of the Intelligence committees had clearance other members didn't have

For example, the gang of eight as it is known-

Maybe it was something to other members of Congress didn't need to see-

[bvar22]

15. Really? Defending Republican Chairman Rogers?

This is especially ironic since it appears that the White House and the DoJ wanted this information made available "to ALL members of Congress".

So NOW where do you stand?

I have to award another point to The Guardian for covering this,
and points to Greenwald and Snowden,
because, in my opinion, NONE of this would be news without them.

Nowhere in Rogers’ statement does he deny he failed to pass on the notice that read,

"We believe that making this document available to all members of Congress, as we did with a similar document in December 2009, is an effective way to inform the legislative debate about reauthorization of Section 215."

Which, I take, is additional confirmation (in addition to the White Paper and reports from Congress) he failed to pass on notice that DOJ and the Administration claimed they wanted shared with all of Congress.

The legality of the 215 dragnet depends, in part, on whether or not the Executive briefed Congress. And because of Mike Rogers, it appears that that legal case is beginning to crumble.


http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/12/mike-rogers-says-4-briefings-recently-makes-up-for-withholding-information-before-patriot-act-vote/#sthash.BlLrt2Wv.dpuf

[hootinholler]

19. OFFS!

From the quoted text in the OP:

"The document was expressly designed to be shared with legislators who did not serve on the panel"

[snooper2]

20. Cool, guess he fucked up LOL

my concern level for this is at about 0.4% right now

But it's fun to reply- Have you seen this award winning ad yet?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. nice ad! too funny

[Maedhros]

16. When presented with evidence of a complete breakdown in the Congressional oversight process

with regard to pervasive surveillance of the American populace, your only response is to chide the Guardian for perceived vanity?

It makes you look foolish.

[snooper2]

17. Hyperbole gets ratings!

"complete breakdown in the Congressional oversight process"

[Maedhros]

24. Why are you so focused on ridiculing those of us who are concerned about our Constitutional rights?

When Bush and Cheney instituted their "Unitary Executive" concept, they laid the foundation for a breakdown of the checks-and-balances paradigm enshrined in the Constitution.

With regard to the NSA surveillance program, Congress and its constituent members cannot fulfill their obligation to "check" the Executive Branch's power if they are not made aware of exactly what it is that the Executive Branch is doing. This is not a radical concept - it's the basis of 200+ years of American civics.

Why sneer at people who recognize the problem?

[snooper2]

25. 117k Targets, it's the truthy far left far right government is spying on me!

Who get annoying after time...

117K active targets is the only thing snowy released that we didn't already know.

Oh, and I don't trust Congress to check that their own ass is clean.

[Maedhros]

29. Ah, yes. Concern for civil rights is "far Left."

I get it now. I can safely place you on the ignore list.

[reusrename]

33. Nobody knew about the robosigning.

The robosigning is when the analysts simply fill out a form or template and they have immediate access to the contents of emails and phone calls.

The template or form drives all of the computer modules that compile all the information needed for requesting a warrant from the FISA court. This ensures that the requirements for the warrant are complied with.

Then, sometime during the following 72 hours, the warrant request is sent to the FISA court. It is automatically approved since all the "legal" requirements have been met when the analyst completes the form or template that starts the process. I imagine thousands of communications can be requested by a single warrant.

Any analyst is authorized to obtain the content of any voice or email record, on his own authority, if he has been verbally authorized to do so by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence.

It's all covered in the FISA law itself, and then made crystal clear by the document releases that Snowden made. The laws were already known, Snowden explains the policy used to implement the law, which I never heard anything about before his disclosures.

If you are familiar with how robosigners were used to flout legal hurdles in the home repossession scandals, then you have to understand that this system of having the analysts become robosigners is done for exactly the same purpose. The only difference being that in the NSA spying case the robosigning has been made the official policy, which I think makes it legal, even though it violates the spirit of the law.

The policy could be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, but no one has been able to argue the case there because all Americans lack legal standing.

Another of the documents that Snowden released was the Verizon warrant which should provide legal standing to Verizon customers since they can now prove to the court that they are being targeted. In the past the court denied standing to everyone because no one could really know whether or not they were on a list since it was all secret.


?87cc7ae5b5e3d133be9f113f907a13faa9f8741e



You are just not up to speed on the facts, that's why you don't understand journalism.

.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Cut the bullshit. Did the intel comm. withhold surveillance info before the Patriot Act vote??

-edit-

The leadership of the House intelligence committee is under growing pressure to explain whether it withheld surveillance information from members of Congress before a key vote to renew the Patriot Act.

-edit-

[Mojorabbit]

34. Attack the messenger. Attack the messenger. nt

[kentuck]

2. Are they appointed by Nancy?

Or does the entire conference vote for them?

[Catherina]

9. Based on this 2007 announcement, it looks like Pelosi chooses the Dems for the House Select

and Boehner chooses his. The leadership of the House gets to choose who serves on the House Intelligence Committee (and gets to remove them too).

Pelosi Announces Members of the Intelligence Committee
January 17, 2007

Washington, D.C. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this evening that she has selected the Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 'These distinguished Members will give to our nation's intelligence programs and activities the aggressive oversight necessary to ensure that they are operating effectively and within the law,' Pelosi said. 'I am confident that the intelligence community will benefit from this type of oversight and that the American people will be made safer by it.'

The Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee for the 110th Congress are:

Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas, Chairman

Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida

Congressman Leonard Boswell of Iowa

Congressman Bud Cramer of Alabama

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo of California

Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey

Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger

Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts

Congressman Mike Thompson of California

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois

Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island

Congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press/pelosi-announces-members-intelligence-committee

(I just used that as an example, here's the 2011 announcement but it doesn't specify that she selects them).

The Senate selections seem to work differently.

Membership and Leadership

The membership of the committees has been limited in time, staggered, and connected to the standing committee system and political party system in Congress. These features, moreover, differ between the two panels. Each select committee, for instance, reserves seats for members from the chamber’s committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs/Foreign Relations, and Judiciary. The specifics differ, however: the Senate requires two persons, a majority and minority Member, from each of these standing committees, while the House calls for only one Member from each standing committee with overlapping jurisdiction.

...

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32525_20120314.pdf

I never thought of it until you asked. Now I'm too pissed off to keep looking because this typical corruption came up in a search

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Verizon lobbyists host fundraisers for Intelligence Committee members
By Jake Harper Jun 06 2013 5:07 p.m.

Lobbyists for Verizon Communications, which is refusing comment on a now-confirmed report that the telecommunications giant turned millions of its customers' records over to the National Security Agency, have thrown fundraisers for members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, records compiled by the Sunlight Foundation show.

According to the Political Party Time database, which tracks candidate fundraising events, lobbyists for Verizon Communications have hosted at least five fundraising events for Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. Louis Dupart, of the lobbying firm The Normandy Group, hosted at least three events, two for Mikulski and one for Collins, while Wayne Berman hosted two more for Collins, including a birthday reception in 2010. Both senators voted in 2008 in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which shielded telecom companies, including Verizon, from lawsuits related to an earlier wiretapping controversy.

Lobbyists for Verizon have also hosted a fundraiser for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., an ex officio member of the Senate committee, and Rep. Thomas Rooney, R-Fla., a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(details)

...

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/verizon/

[Scuba]

6. "... tantamount to subversion of the democratic process ..."

What democratic process?

[uponit7771]

12. +1

[JDPriestly]

11. This what is most dangerous about the surveillance bureaucracy.

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

A very few people know its secrets. If more knew, the bureaucracy would not be allowed to exist.

And the surveillance bureaucracy is inherently undemocratic and unconstitutional because it enables a small clique of people to have very personal information, the secrets if you will, of everyone else. That gives that small clique of people incredible power.

The power to expose. The power to manipulate. The power to lie. The power to hide facts. The power to embarrass. The power to kill. Power upon power.

And why would a person want to become a leading officer in the most powerful military force in the world, if not to become very, very powerful?

So, the kinds of people drawn to NSA work and the nature of the work itself make the authority of the NSA to conduct such massive surveillance all the more dangerous.

In fact, no one should have that authority. And the internet needs to be chained down in some way so that no one can take that authority. The internet needs to be truly open to the scrutiny of all of us. I don't know how that could be done technically, but the only thing that should be under surveillance is making sure that the internet is free.

Criminals can still be caught even if every word exchanged on the internet or close to it is not under surveillance. Records at an individual level can still be kept and obtained with a subpoena issued based on facts that demonstrate probable cause, just as law enforcement is required to do in the Constitution.

[Catherina]

23. A most important point. Thank you n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. "Now Morgan Griffith, a Republican ... is calling for answers." What about some Democrats?

To start with, how about Nancy Pelosi calling for answers? Just because she gave de facto immunity to Bush-II by taking "impeachment off the table" doesn't mean that she should live up to her current responsibilities.

How about other Democrats in leadership positions?

What are they waiting for? Teabaggers to demand answers?

[bvar22]

18. The Democrats are searching for "Bi-Partisan Consensus",

common ground with the American Political Taliban.

They are willing "compromise", and meet them In-the-Middle
between democracy and fanatical absolutism,
so that the Democrats get to Look like the Adults.

[pnwmom]

21. Why not try blaming the Republican Chair of the Committee who made the decision

not to share the info with the rest of Congress, as he was supposed to?

[Catherina]

22. There's Holt, Wyden, Udall, Conyers.... Forget Pelosi for this one

She's part of the intelligence committee and the whole intelligence committee is part of this problem.

Question:
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm

Question to Edward Snowden: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the ***Gang of Eight***, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King , the better off we all are"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033003

[hr]
The Gang of Eight

Background

The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]

Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Mike Rogers (R): (Chair)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D): (Ranking member)

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Dianne Feinstein (D): (Chair)
Saxby Chambliss (R): (Ranking member)

Leadership in theUnited States House of Representatives:

John Boehner (R): (Speaker of the House)
Nancy Pelosi (D): (Minority leader)

Leadership in the United States Senate:

Harry Reid (D): (Majority leader)
Mitch McConnell (R): (Minority leader)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29

[Berlum]

26. Republicon occultism. As usual.

The Repubbies hide everything. Except their determination to destroy American democracy and replace it with Christo-Corporate Facism, Inc.

[msanthrope]

27. Sounds like a Republican problem to me, as they chair the committee. nt

[dkf]

28. All intelligence committee heads are suspect.

They are completely biased towards the surveillance state and are complicit in making sure the public knows nothing.

They don't want anyone to be held accountable for violating the constitution so they need to protect members by giving them plausible deniability. That's the sad truth.