Peter King: NSA Should Monitor Congress in Case They’re ‘Talking to an Al Qaeda Leader’

[jakeXT]

Appearing on Fox News Channel on Sunday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) dismissed members of Congress calling for the National Security Agency to reform its information gathering practices. He insisted that even members of Congress should be monitored by the NSA, just like every other American, in case they are “talking to an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

King objected to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who objected to the NSA monitoring the communications of elected representatives.

“I think members of Congress should be treated the same as everyone else,” King said. “If a member of Congress is talking to an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should that member of Congress be any different from any person on the street?”

He added that Sanders was attempting to imply that the NSA is “spying” on Congress. “They’re not spying on anyone,” he added.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/peter-king-nsa-should-monitor-congress-in-case-theyre-talking-to-an-al-qaeda-leader/

[Indi Guy]

1. Peter King is suborning treason here.

“I think members of Congress should be treated the same as everyone else,” Yeah, and everyone else should be immune to NSA's illegal surveillance as well.

[Eleanors38]

2. NSA has an app for King's talking ass?

[Thinkingabout]

3. I don't often agree with Peter King but this time it should be equal for members of Congress

To be subject to the same as the rest of the nation.

[GoneFishin]

4. I think they should monitor Peter King to see if he's talking to space aliens. nt

[deminks]

5. What if they were talking to an IRA leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/of-course-spying-on-congress-is-no-big.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Of course spying on congress is no big deal. Why do you ask?

by digby

Peter King further proves his obtuse misunderstanding of the constitution and American democracy.

“I think members of Congress should be treated the same as everyone else,” King said. “If a member of Congress is talking to an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should that member of Congress be any different from any person on the street?”

Peter King would probably have been in a world of hurt if they'd been monitoring his own very real terrorist supporting activity in the past.

But be that as it may, the problem with this is even more acute than just the clear violation of the constitution by doing any of this stuff without probable cause. It's the idea that the executive branch is using surveillance on the legislative branch which, last I heard, was equal to the executive. It's constitutionally very dicey to do this. In fact, it's a clear cut violation.


http://pando.com/2014/01/03/is-the-nsa-spying-on-congress/

(snip)

But maybe most damning of all, we know that the NSA has not denied surveilling Members of Congress. Indeed, when I asked U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) if the NSA was keeping files on his colleagues, he recounted a meeting between NSA officials and lawmakers in the lead-up to a closely contested House vote to better regulate the agency:

“One of my colleagues asked the NSA point blank will you give me a copy of my own record and the NSA said no, we won’t. They didn’t say no we don’t have one. They said no we won’t. So that’s possible.”

Grayson is right: presumably, if the NSA wasn’t tracking lawmakers, it would have flatly denied it. Instead, those officials merely denied lawmakers access to whatever files the agency might have. That suggests one of two realities: 1) the NSA is keeping files on lawmakers 2) the NSA isn’t keeping files on lawmakers, but answered vaguely in order to stoke fear among legislators that it is.