General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Origin of Robert Parry’s Consortium News [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)From The Atlantic, via WillyT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Danger of NSA Spying on Members of Congress
An executive-branch agency has been empowered to store revealing information about the communications of everyone in the legislature.
Conor Friedersdorf
Jan 6 2014, 12:00 PM ET
EXCERPT...
Should anyone doubt how much mischief could come from spying on even one member of Congress, let's look back at the story of former Democratic Representative Jane Harman and what happened when the NSA intercepted and transcribed one of her telephone calls. That's right: There's a known instance in which a legislator's private communications were captured by the NSA, though it's a complicated story, and there isn't any conclusive evidence that the NSA did anything wrong. In fact, the NSA's apparent blamelessness is what makes this story particularly instructive: It shows that intercepting congressional communications has a high cost even when it's done innocently, inadvertently, and defensibly.
The story begins with the NSA surveilling two Israeli nationals suspected of being spies. Unbeknownst to them, their phone calls were being recorded by the NSAand one day, a conversation with Harman got swept up in the ongoing wiretap. No one on the call knew it was being recorded.
[font color="green"]"One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage," [/font color] the New York Times reported on April 20, 2009, following up on a story broken by Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein.
Let's assume the NSA wiretap was totally legitimate. As Marcy Wheeler noted at the time, it seems to have been approved by a court as part of a long-running investigation, and "the investigationand the wiretapswere the classic, proper use of FISA: for an intelligence investigation targeting suspected agents of a foreign power operating in the US ... We all better hope the NSA listens closely to conversations between powerful members of Congress and suspected spies, and that when they make quid pro quo deals, that conversation gets looked at much more closely."
But the story doesn't end there. [font color="green"]Congressional Quarterly reported that a criminal case against Harman was dropped because she was a useful ally to the Bush Administration: [/font color]
First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harmans wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation ... But thats when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened. According to two officials privy to the events, [font color="green"]Gonzales said he needed Jane[/font color] to help support the administrations warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program.
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.
More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/
Thank you for caring about the situation, JEB. It means the world.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):