Debunking the Myth! There Is No Real Oversight Of The NSA's Surveillance

[KoKo]

Last edited Sun Aug 18, 2013, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Throughout these revelations of NSA spying, the common refrain from supporters of the program was that there was strong oversight "from all three branches of government." We'd already questioned those claims, but with the recent revelations of widespread abuses, combined with the head of FISC (judicial branch) admitting that he relies on what the NSA tells him to do the oversight, and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein claiming to have never even seen a key document concerning abuses, not to mention that the NSA teaches its analysts how to hide relevant info from those in charge of oversight, it seems pretty clear that the idea of real oversight is a joke.

The EFF has now broken down exactly why the truth is that none of the three branches of government have been able to do real oversight:

First, the Executive. After a review of internal NSA audits of the spying programs provided by Edward Snowden, the Post lays out—in stark detail—that the claims of oversight inside the Executive Branch are empty. The article reveals that an internal NSA audit not shown to Congress, the President, or the FISA Court detailed thousands of violations where the NSA collected, stored, and accessed American's communications content and other information. In one story, NSA analysts searched for all communications containing the Swedish manufacturer Ericsson and “radio” or “radar.” What's worse: the thousands of violations only include the NSA's main office in Maryland—not the other—potentially hundreds—of other NSA offices across the country. And even more importantly, the documents published by the Post reveal violations increasing every year. The news reports and documents are in direct contrast to the repeated assertions by President Obama (video), General James Clapper (video), and General Keith Alexander (video) that the US government does not listen to or look at Americans' phone calls or emails. So much for official pronouncements that oversight by the Executive was "extensive" and "robust."

Second, the FISA Court. The Post presents a second article in which the Chief Judge of the FISA Court admits that the court is unable to act as a watchdog or stop the NSA's abuses: “The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, US District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance." Civil liberties and privacy advocates have long said that the FISA Court is a rubber stamp when it comes to the spying, but this is worse—this is the Court admitting that it cannot conduct the oversight the President and others have claimed it is doing. So much for claims by officials from the White House (video), NSA, DOJ, and Intelligence Committee members of Congress that the FISA Court is another strong pillar of oversight.

Third, the Congress. Last week, Representative Sensenbrenner complained that "the practice of classified briefings are a 'rope-a-dope operation' in which lawmakers are given information and then forbidden from speaking out about it." Members of Congress who do not serve on the Intelligence Committees in the both the House and Senate have had difficulty in obtaining documents about the NSA spying. Last week, it was even uncovered that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, failed to provide freshmen members of Congress vital documents about the NSA's activities during a key vote to reapprove the spying. Senators Wyden and Udall have been desperately trying to tell the American people what is going on, but this year the House Intelligence committee's Subcommittee on Oversight has not met once and the Senate Intelligence committee has met publicly only twice.

So, the next time an NSA defender trots out those claims of strong oversight from all three branches, don't let them get away with it, since it's clearly not true.

http://www.techdirt.com/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[PSPS]

2. But we MUST learn to be happy about being spied upon or else we'll get The Ron Paul, or something!!1

I think that's today's deflection coming from the swooners and surveillance/police state apparatchiks.

[pscot]

3. Oversight is a rope-a-dope operation

Where is the President? Why can't he get ahead of the story.

[Hydra]

5. Because clearly they never seriously prepared a plan for a leak of this kind

You can tell the WH is off balance and even the famous cool of the President has been very shaky.

My thought is that he can't get ahead of the story because he's smack in the middle of it. Whether or not he believes in it, he's supporting it, and he has no legal basis to do so. That puts him in a bad position- he needs to get Snowden and make him disappear, because this isn't going away otherwise.

[Half-Century Man]

9. Snowden's head on a spear won't stop this.

To paraphrase Admiral Yamamoto, "All we have done is wake the sleeping giant."
However this ends, The Grand Illusion we have all been sharing is over.

The reality pixie is here, he's pissed and has a flamethrower.

[caseymoz]

13. I think right now, even if he gets Snowden . . .

. . . the shitstorm won't clear up. People are not going to shake the feeling of being watched, and that's going to continue having a cumulative effect. For one thing, people who have had no paranoia before are just going to go nuts. Nerves in general will run higher and higher, and resentment of the government by both wings will just grow.

They doesn't mean Snowden is safe. It would just feel too good to get him, and if one can't do anything else, one does the ineffective.

I'll go a little off subject about the cumulative effect. Remember, it was covert tactics that got us into trouble with terrorism to begin with. Now that they're being applied domestically, the same thing will happen. It's ironic that if it weren't for these intelligence guys, we wouldn't needed these intelligence guys. They created the very problem we've entrusted them to correct.

Now we're going to see a lot of the US population become radicalized.

[hueymahl]

4. Thank you

Very will put.

[WillyT]

6. K & R !!!

[uponit7771]

7. LOL!! Same thing the fuckin joke of a man book pimper Green Greenwald said!!

Good grief. Really, Glenn? If these were supposed to be secret "internal" audits, then why would they be white-washed? Why would they "white-wash" something that no one was supposedly ever supposed to see? And if it's a cover-up, then why would the audit look so bad, at least on its face? If the NSA was secretly trying to abuse the programs and cover up any such abuse, then why would they identifyy and document more than 2,700 separate incidents? If they were were really trying to abuse the programs and get away with it, why document any actual incidents of over-reach at all, much less 2,700 of them? And why, as the article notes, would the DOJ self-report incidents of over-reach to the FISC? As usual, Greenwald's anti-government hysteria makes no sense. But as we know, with Greenwald, if something doesn't fit The Narrative, it must be ignored or explained away, and for Glenn, government conspiracy is always an easy fall-back position. Like I said, good grief.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1231839/-Another-NSA-Bombshell-Starts-to-Fizzle-Out-as-Greenwald-Pushes-Government-Conspiracy-Theory

[last1standing]

11. Greenwald's the hysterical one?

Wow! I guess this is the only thing left after finding out one's hero has been lying to the American people on the Jay Leno show.

[uponit7771]

16. No, the people who believe the bashing book pimper without question are

[last1standing]

18. Do you know what 'hysterical' means?

I'm not sure you do based on your response.

But you can spew insults very well, I'll give you that. I usually have to listen to a group of twelve year old children to hear that level of senseless bile. Congratulations!

[uponit7771]

20. Yes, the response to SnowGlen is a good example of it...there's no doubt a need to for oversight

...etc but most of this shit is stoking fear taking advantage of what people think computers can or can't do.

The most sophistry comes from Greenwald...

If there was a real HOF issue at hand there would be no need for the sneaky language

[last1standing]

21. Ok, we agree that we need oversight. Can we talk about that like adults or do we need more insults.

I don't call Obama names so can you quit doing so with Greenwald and Snowden? If not, then no one will take you seriously, and no one should.

I don't try to discuss politics with name-calling children.

[noise]

12. Why?

So surveillance apologists could have more cool talking points.

[uponit7771]

17. No, so someone can view this whole subject with the skepticism that it needs

[NealK]

15. OFFS

[last1standing]

8. Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter because the Guardian uses cookies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3477787

The United States has apparently abandoned the Constitution in favor of a hit count report.

[randome]

10. If we're going to worry overmuch about what the NSA COULD be doing...

...then why not apply the same assessment to Congress? After all, they COULD be doing the oversight they are authorized to do.

But they don't. Because they're lazy, too obsessed with re-election, etc. If the NSA needs better oversight, it should come from outside Congress. And have teeth.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[pscot]

19. Good point

The congress, the courts and the whitehouse have all been fucking the same dog.

[HumansAndResources]

23. Wyden Considered Talking, But He Didn't Want To Defect To Russia

He goes through some of this in the Rolling Stone Q/A session. "As he was unable to share what he knew, even with his own staff, he was left issuing a series of ominous, if vague, warnings." ...

People who get that kind of info are undoubtedly aware that talking could have disastrous consequences - not only for their own lives, but their family as well. The people at the top of the "Intelligence" racket - serving the Transnationals - have much LESS decency than the "Mafia" they put out on HBO. Don't take my word for it - just follow the trails of their "death squads" around the world.

[KoKo]

27. +1

[reusrename]

30. This is the real problem we're having.

Crimes can only be made public under pain of death. The secrecy has to stop somewhere.

[reusrename]

29. What's wrong with public access?

Why are the policies secret to begin with?

I know it's sort of adorable to think that terrorists are using email and cell phones to plan their crimes, but does anyone really believe this?

Why do you think it makes sense to keep this stuff so secret?

[NealK]

14. K&R

And bookmarked. Thanks.

[cantbeserious]

22. Kick And Recommend

eom

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. knr

[nashville_brook]

25. k and r

[Historic NY]

26. About that #3 the congress......

the House Intelligence committee is an oxymoron, when its staffed with Michelle Bachmann's.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=michele+bachmann+on+the+house+intelligence+committee

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. If the executive, legislative, and judicial branch won't do it, then...we need more whistle blowers.

[KoKo]

31. I'm Hopeful...they will be Coming. The "PTB" have gone a Step Too Far....

but then....they could go a bit further if we don't stop them in their tracks.