Even Senate Intelligence Committee Admits That NSA Oversight Is Often A Game Of 20 Questions
from the look-at-that... dept
We just recently quoted Rep. Justin Amash talking about how Congressional "oversight" of the NSA tended to be this bizarre game of 20 questions, where briefings would be held, but you wouldn't be told any information unless you asked precisely the right questions:But Amash said that intelligence officials are often evasive during classified briefings and reveal little new information unless directly pressed.It would appear that sense goes beyond just folks like Amash, all the way up to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein. While she's still a strong supporter of the NSA's surveillance programs, the latest revelations about the NSA's collection of buddy lists and email address books pointed out that those issues weren't covered by Congressional oversight, since they happened overseas. When the Washington Post questions Feinstein's office about this, a senior staffer seemed unconcerned, mentioning that perhaps they should be asking questions about it:
"You don't have any idea what kind of things are going on," Amash said. "So you have to start just spitting off random questions. Does the government have a moon base? Does the government have a talking bear? Does the government have a cyborg army? If you don't know what kind of things the government might have, you just have to guess and it becomes a totally ridiculous game of twenty questions."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in August that the committee has less information about, and conducts less oversight of, intelligence-gathering that relies solely on presidential authority. She said she planned to ask for more briefings on those programs.That, ladies and gentleman, is the kind of "oversight" that Congress conducts.
“In general, the committee is far less aware of operations conducted under 12333,” said a senior committee staff member, referring to Executive Order 12333, which defines the basic powers and responsibilities of the intelligence agencies. “I believe the NSA would answer questions if we asked them, and if we knew to ask them, but it would not routinely report these things, and in general they would not fall within the focus of the committee.”
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: buddy lists, congress, inboxes, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, senate intelligence committee
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I am contemplating the madness of this line. So if the senate doesn't ask questions about any clearly bad program then it's green light? Let us hope the right questions are asked before it's too late eh? Or maybe we can, you know, put the NSA under very strict reins or even better, CLOSE THE DAMN THING since it's corrupted beyond fix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As has been mentioned, we haven't heard all of the abuses that the NSA has done. In fact, Greenwald says...well how about you read it for yourself?
http://world.time.com/2013/10/14/greenwald-on-snowden-leaks-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
important study of intel community
http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2013/09/nctc-nolan/
and the dissertation is available for download as a pdf:
http://media.philly.com/documents/Nolan_Dissertation.PDF
It backs up a lot of what's being reported now about too much data being swept up and too big a bureaucracy crippling the effectiveness of intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answers
I'm sure the answer would involve things like, not technically an army, not actually cyborgs, it depends on the definition of have....but if you ask again the Psybourg Battalion will laser fry all your metadata. And by metadata they mean children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my bet is on vegetable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Getting her out of the wheelchair!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The senate committees will have already worked out the outcome behind closed doors as always, the rest is just a dog and pony show for the public and the media.
From the White House to the various government agencies that go before the senate and house committees have and always will make the back room deals as they always have.
The senate and house reps get an IOU to pull out at a later date or they will get some support for some pet project of theirs.
The Potomac two step is still alive in Washington and will be for years to come and the U.S. citizens are always the one left on the hook.
You can bet is a senator or congressman was having their calls/emails scooped up that there would be heads rolling, but since it just your everyday citizen, well sorry but were expendable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she goes from being intolerably obtuse to explicitly threatening. Just like every other literally Reactionary insider. There is no left-right on the inside, only the powers-that-be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for checks and balances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]