Lawmakers Say Obstacles Limited Oversight Of NSA’s Telephone Surveillance Program
Source: Washington Post
The Obama administration points to checks and balances from Congress as a key rationale for supporting bulk collection of Americans’ telephone communications data, but several lawmakers responsible for overseeing the program in recent years say that they felt limited in their ability to challenge its scope and legality.
The administration argued Friday that lawmakers were fully informed of the surveillance program and voted to keep it in place as recently as 2011. Officials say they have taken unusual steps to make information available to Congress, and committee leaders say they have carefully examined the National Security Agency’s data collection.
Yet some other members of the intelligence and judiciary committees paint a different picture.
They describe regular classified briefings in which intelligence officials would not volunteer details if questions were not asked with absolute precision.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/08/10/bee87394-004d-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Not "wittingly."
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
Californeeway
(97 posts)It would be important to hear the opinions of other lawmakers on the same boards if only for context.
PSPS
(13,591 posts)In our joke country, though, it means you "take bribes."
delrem
(9,688 posts)
QuestForSense
(653 posts)The NSA is busy serving the interests of their corporate contractors, not the public. Congress set it up that way. They are not our friends.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Not the kind of thing I enjoy, and totally pervasive.
People (sort of) understand the phrase "military industrial complex".
But it doesn't really mean anything until it's completed: military industrial political complex.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Congressional Is what Eisenhower almost added to his speech.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Something this total couldn't happen otherwise.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Congress passed the damn bill. In 2011 it was reauthorized by an overwhelming margin. 2011 would have been a great opportunity to make the necessary changes but they didn't even have committee hearings to go over the law with an eye on oversight to flesh out what was working and what was in need of substantial change. If Congress wants to find where the problem lies they only need to pick up a mirror.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)discussing the programs among members of the congressional committees that are supposed to be overseeing them, it is very difficult if not impossible to make changes.
If you read the article in full, you understand that members of Congress have difficulty even taking notes on what the members of Congress learn about the program or thoroughly considering the details of the program because of the excessive secrecy.
That is why the bill gets reauthorized so overwhelmingly. Free, intelligent discussion about it even in Congress is impossible.
This program is truly the perfect crime. It is so technical, so difficult to understand and the criminals running it so good at overwhelming everyone with the fear of the threat it supposedly deals with and with the technical doubletalk and confusing obfuscation that Congress just passes the law without much discussion.
What member of Congress has the courage to admit to his/her constituents that he votes for a program that he can't begin to understand, some technical (to him or her) nonsense that sounds impressive. Congress votes out of the fear that if something goes wrong, if there is another terror attack, they personally will be blamed for it if they vote against this bill that they don't understand. They vote out of fear of some vague threat of an attack and out of fear of not being re-elected and blamed if they don't vote for it.
We saw how Clapper lied to Congress on video and TV. Well, just imagine what kinds of answers he was giving to members of Congress in closed session. If he can't tell the truth when the entire nation has the opportunity to watch him, what kinds of lies and evasions does he use in answering questions in closed sessions?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Here were the results per Wyden's former Deputy Chief of Staff:
In May 2011, before the Senate was -- again -- scheduled to vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act, Senators Wyden and Udall -- again -- called for the declassification of the Administration’s secret interpretation of Section 215. This time, in a Huffington Post Op-Ed entitled "How Can Congress Debate a Secret Law?" they wrote:
Members of Congress are about to vote to extend the most controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act for four more years, even though few of them understand how those provisions are being interpreted and applied.
As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have been provided with the executive branch's classified interpretation of those provisions and can tell you that we believe there is a significant discrepancy between what most people -- including many Members of Congress -- think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and what government officials secretly believe the Patriot Act allows them to do.
Legal scholars, law professors, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Research Service have all written interpretations of the Patriot Act and Americans can read any of these interpretations and decide whether they support or agree with them. But by far the most important interpretation of what the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S. government and this interpretation is -- stunningly --classified.
What does this mean? It means that Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret. Most members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. Even if these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor without violating classification rules.
During the debate itself, Wyden and Udall offered an amendment to declassify the Administration's legal interpretation of its Patriot Act surveillance authorities and, in a twenty minute speech on the Senate floor, Wyden warned that the American people would one day be outraged to learn that the government was engaged in surveillance activities that many Americans would assume were illegal, just as they were every other time the national security committee has tried to hide its questionable activities from the American people.
Fun aside: As you can see in the video, to underscore the point that hiding programs from the American people rarely goes well for the Administration, I had my staff make a poster of the famous image of Oliver North testifying before Congress during the Iran-Contra hearing. I really wanted to replace North’s face with the words “insert your photo here,” but we didn't have the time.
Did President Obama welcome an open debate at that time?
No. Congress voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act for four more years and the only point we -- as critics -- could raise that might be confused with debate was a hypothetical argument illustrated with a twenty-year-old picture of Oliver North. And, again, Senator Wyden couldn't even tell me what he was so concerned about. In strategy meetings with me and his Intelligence Committee staffer, I had to repeatedly leave the room when the conversation strayed towards details they couldn't share with me because I no longer had an active security clearance. "You know, it would be a lot easier if you could just tell me what I can't say?" I'd vent in frustration. They agreed, but still asked me to leave the room.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)The issue is not black and white so there is a lot of truth in this. But here is the other side. It says it a lot better than I could.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/12/199122/senate-intelligence-panel-could.html#.Ugm3PFko6P9
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)
24601
(3,959 posts)fault because they didn't answer the question that was not actually asked.
JHC, have they ever tuned into a press conference?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Swagman
(1,934 posts)because Snowden is a "Ruskie" now.
rather than face a lifetime of incarceration he chose freedom. Good for him.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What would you call them?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)beholden to the powers that give them the money to get in, and stay in, public office! We need PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS and COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!!! Without CCFR we will continue to suffer through abuses by the govt., Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, oil companies... Our media and Wall Street need to be broken up like we did to Ma Bell!
We can continue to be upset at the symptoms of our Political corruption; no background checks for assault weapons, climate change, medical pot, voter I.D. Laws, equal pay for women... K street needs to go, no more fund raisers that waste our politician's time and allow the 1% special access to legally bribe our politicians!
Of course, when we start to fight for CCFR understand this, our country is run by a shadow govt., those who spent the money and got Congress elected. They will not give up the power willingly. They will buy off the police who are generally right wingers. It will be tough and require a lot more people than OWS had. It will also require a singularity of purpose. OWS, for all of their sacrifice, made the mistake of going after all of the symptoms instead of the ROOT CAUSE, our political corruption in how we elect what used to be OUR representatives. Let's not make that same mistake again!