White House Knew That Mike Rogers Withheld Details Of NSA Surveillance From Others In Congress

from the it's-the-coverup-that-gets-you dept

Wed, Aug 14th 2013 11:43am — Mike Masnick

In the last week or so it's come out that Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee has actively blocked requests from members of Congress to review details of the NSA's surveillance program -- showing that the claim that everyone in Congress was informed about these programs isn't just a lie but a duplicitous one. And then it got worse. Rep. Justin Amash pointed out that Rogers' committee actually withheld key information from all incoming Representatives in the class of 2010, who had to vote on the Patriot Act's reauthorization, which renewed the program to collect data on all Americans in bulk.

Amash highlighted a document showing that the White House had sent a letter to Rogers, telling him that he should make the document available to all members of Congress, and then noted that he had not actually done so in 2011 (though he had in 2009). Marcy Wheeler has pointed out that if you actually closely read the DOJ's paper that was released on Friday defending this program, you'd see that the White House was well aware that Rogers never made the document available to Congress.

Of course, you have to read the document very, very, very carefully to spot that. The paper first talks about the document that was provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in 2009, and then notes that both committees made those documents available to all of their colleagues:

In December 2009, DOJ worked with the Intelligence Community to provide a classified briefing paper to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that could be made available to all Members of Congress regarding the telephony metadata collection program. A letter accompanying the briefing paper sent to the House Intelligence Committee specifically stated that “it is important that all Members of Congress have access to information about this program” and that “making this document available to all members of Congress is an effective way to inform the legislative debate about reauthorization of Section 215.” See Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to the Honorable Silvestre Reyes, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Dec. 14, 2009). Both Intelligence Committees made this document available to all Members of Congress prior to the February 2010 reauthorization of Section 215. See Letter from Sen. Diane Feinstein and Sen. Christopher S. Bond to Colleagues (Feb. 23, 2010); Letter from Rep. Silvestre Reyes to Colleagues (Feb. 24, 2010)

But, when it came to the similar document in 2011, the White House report only notes that the Senate Intelligence Committee made the document available, and never says anything about the House. And of course, the letter that Amash highlighted points out that the White House was clearly urging Rogers to make it available as well -- and he did not do that.

An updated version of the briefing paper, also recently released in redacted form to the public, was provided to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees again in February 2011 in connection with the reauthorization that occurred later that year. See Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein and the Honorable Saxby Chambliss, Chairman and Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Feb. 2, 2011); Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to the Honorable Mike Rogers and the Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Feb. 2, 2011). The Senate Intelligence Committee made this updated paper available to all Senators later that month. See Letter from Sen. Diane Feinstein and Sen. Saxby Chambliss to Colleagues (Feb. 8, 2011).

In other words: in 2009, this information was made available to everyone in Congress. In 2011, Rogers chose not to make it available to House members, meaning that (in particular) the 65 new members of Congress who voted for the reauthorization that year had no idea about this program, completely contrary to the later claims of Rogers and the White House that every member of Congress was fully aware of this program. (Updated to clarify that the 65 members were new, not briefed on this and voted for reauthorization).

Given all of this, the calls are getting louder and louder both inside and outside of Congress to get Mike Rogers to explain why he actively withheld critical information on NSA surveillance from Members of Congress who were tasked with reviewing and voting on the continuation of the program. And, it's now becoming quite obvious that Mike Rogers is not representing the interests of the American public, but rather his friends and former colleagues within the intelligence community:

"The congressional committees charged with oversight of the intelligence community have long been captive to, and protective of, the intelligence agencies," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

"Many of the congressional staff, in fact, come from those agencies. This latest revelation demonstrates the harm caused by that conflict of interest. When the congressional oversight committee is more loyal to the agency it oversees than to the legislative chamber its members were elected to serve in, the public's interest is seriously compromised."

We've talked about regulatory capture for years, but this is an extreme form, and when it reaches the point that the head of the Committee charged with oversight appears to be proactively seeking to block critical information from other members of Congress, and the White House looks the other way (while claiming something entirely different in public) it should be obvious that there is no oversight at all. There is, instead, a government that is helping the intelligence community at the expense of the American public.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, house intelligence committee, justin amash, mike rogers, patriot act, section 215

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Dennis Daryl Shamblin, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:47am

New Book Surviving Bigfoot and the Dixie Mafia
Hello my name is Dennis Daryl Shamblin and I have a new book out titled Surviving Bigfoot and the Dixie Mafia. I am certain you will enjoy reading it. It is available through Amazon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:06pm

"you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
But it's a waste of time to pick through details! Just try to understand the nature of the beast you're dealing with, such as that by Rogers so doing, other members of Congress have the old "plausible deniability", when actually anyone at all informed just from "mainstream" accounts should have long known it from the several whistleblowers before Snowden.

They're ALL thoroughly corrupt and in on the game secrets, Mike. At best, you have insufficient cynicism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:13pm

"Oversight"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:17pm

Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
For once, I don't feel the same urge to hit report when I see your post.

It's still there, but it's not as bad as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:17pm

Ladies and Gentlemen...
Your American Tax Dollars at work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
Every once in a while he pulls his head out of his ass for a moment of clarity... but then he puts it right back in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:23pm

from what i have been reading recently, it seems to me that Obama has about as much authority, as much clout as Pepsi. it seems that the USA is run by those at the top of the various security agencies who also do what the hell they like, including taking no notice of and actually completely ignoring who is supposed to be the head of the Nation. anything else that adds fuel to the fire that the USA is as near to being a Police State as it gets?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ss, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:55pm

I don't believe that this country has done anything trustworthy for as long as I've been paying attention and then some. There's a fuck job around every corner and it's now pretty clear that most of that is rooted in a dirty congress.

You definitely can't rebuild trust when the original version was nothing but a greenback foundation with a servant's entrance and a revolving door for the lords.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

I don't think there's any lack of cynicism on Mike's part. I think he's well aware of the complicity of nearly all who feed at the trough of our tax dollars. You see, when one stands up and decries Congress for being a bunch of scoundrels, etc., one isn't giving any meaningful information or being at all insightful.

Each seemingly minute data point like the one in this article is a concrete thing, not another vague pronouncement of vague evildoings. In the court of public opinion the latter results in a mistrial. The former, when gathered together, can bring down institutions.

And that's what is needed, right? The intelligence apparatus in its current form needs to be dismantled and made to be part of that government of, by and for the people we heard about in civics class. Otherwise I'm going to have to get US Government classes taught side by side with Creationism, as they'll contain equal amounts of the truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:07pm

Re:
You see, when one stands up and decries Congress for being a bunch of scoundrels, etc., one isn't giving any meaningful information or being at all insightful.

A thousand times this.

Further, when you loudly make broad-brushed accusations -- even if they're absolutely true -- you sound like a crank and will be ignored by the very people you're trying to reach.

It's much more effective to take advantage of the steady drip of specific wrongdoings by pointing them out individually. People will eventually get the gist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:08pm

Re:
Stick to Creationism. It's more honest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:41pm

Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
God help me, I�ll actually give this an �insightful� vote.

See? You�re not all bad, OOTB. Probably 95%, at the most.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:43pm

An ice storm has hit hell! For once I've had to with hold the urge to hit the report button on ootb. Both on topic and makes sense.
---------------

Again as demonstrated in this article, we can not trust any one supporting the spying at the magnitude it has reached. What little trust the government could have gotten from the public has been squandered.

There is little hope in my mind of the NSA nor congress critters ever regaining that trust until they realize that it can't go on as it has. I'm not talking band aid fixes that just cover up for eyesight what's wrong.

All the word twisting, lying, and misdirection has indeed had an effect. That is to totally destroy any belief in this government over what it is doing in this matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
Further, when you loudly make broad-brushed accusations -- even if they're absolutely true -- you sound like a crank and will be ignored by the very people you're trying to reach.

Yeah, pretty much where I was going with that, but typing a reply on my phone while the cursor keeps going places I don't want... well, that derailed my train of thought. Thanks for taking it to its proper conclusion.

Seriously, a couple years ago anyone standing up and waving his arms about saying the NSA was reading everyone's emails and tracking their phone calls would have been taken as seriously by the general publc as a 911 "truther" or chemtrail snorter, just another paranoid in the cacophonous chorus. But these sequential, verifiable revelations are the equivalent of a DoD-stamped shipping manifest of 55-gal drums filled hallucinogenic aerosols with a handwritten note stating "this lot is for the airspace over West Hollywood."

Every time the Guardian drops another Snowdenbomb, and every time someone outs another bit of government Truthiness, we get further away from a smile and a wink. We're well on our way to a determined grimace, methinks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:57pm

Re:
Oversight can also mean failed to see, which about sums up how the intelligence committee exercises it powers of oversight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re: Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
Yea, I hear those ACME Cranial Sphincter Extraction Tools only work temporarily like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 7:41pm

At this point if Obama came out on a news cast and said they were ending all the spying on Americans...

Would you believe that?

At this point I'd have to say no I don't believe it. Total creditability has been lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 8:12pm

There is one other little thing I would like to call attention to. In 1948 the US signed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

So not only is the Constitution and Bill of Rights being ignored, so is a treaty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 8:24pm

Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
Reporting this into the dark was totally uncalled for. Grow up people, when he says something on topic and coherent treat it as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Harris (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:09am

Re:
Sir, I reject your accusation as completely outrageous.

It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that Pepsi has far more authority and clout than your President Obama, or any other president since Roosevelt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:10am

Re: Re:
You have to try before you can fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
southerngent, 15 Aug 2013 @ 6:04am

Re: Re:
you have insulted me sir and I demand satisfaction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 15 Aug 2013 @ 6:13am

Re: Re: "you have to read the document very, very, very carefully"
Uncovered to see what it was, then reported it for ad hominem attack on Mike. Stop whining, she deserved it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:20am

"..a government that is helping the intelligence community at the expense of the American public."
Although I still fly my state flag, it angers me that I can't even look at the American flag anymore. When I do, all I see is corruption, deception, and more damn lies. In my eyes, The US government has lost its face value. Now it spits upon the constitution and walks on the backs of its citizens with an evermore sense of tyranny. The government's motto has become "Do as I say, not as I do." The American people have already lost control of the government. It is not their government anymore. :-{
[ link to this | view in thread ]