Rep. Peter King Says Referring To NSA Activity As 'Spying' Or 'Snooping' Is Slander

from the oh-really? dept

Rep. Peter King -- whose past "hits" have included demanding that the Treasury Department add Wikileaks to its terrorist list, that the Boston bombings showed that we needed even more surveillance, and that reporters who report on leaks like the Ed Snowden leak should be prosecuted -- is apparently upset with President Obama's comments last week concerning how the administration is looking to deal with NSA surveillance.

Now, we were disappointed in those comments as well, but mainly because they were mostly meaningless trifles, designed to appease the public with promises of more transparency, rather than an actual promise to cut back on spying on every single person in the US. Apparently King is upset on the other side of things, believing that even the tiniest amount of increased transparency means that Al Qaeda will win:

The President’s announcement today that he will pursue “reforms” to National Security Agency counterterrorism programs is a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility. These programs are legal, transparent and contain the appropriate checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. These intelligence tools keep Americans safe every single day.

America is at war with Islamist terror groups that kill and maim innocent civilians. The current threat to the Homeland is just as high as it was before 9/11. It is difficult to imagine past war leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill willingly surrendering signals intelligence tools that are needed to fight our enemies. We need a president who defends our intelligence programs, explains them appropriately to the American people, and uses every legal capability in his arsenal to defeat al Qaeda.

It's difficult to know where to start with this, since it's almost all ridiculous. The programs are not at all transparent, don't appear to contain any significant checks and balances and are of questionable legality. Furthermore, multiple Senators have pointed out that there is no evidence that the hoovering up of all phone records has done anything to "keep Americans safe every day."

The second paragraph is just pure fearmongering based on nothing -- especially the claims about the threats being just as high today as they were before 9/11. Of course, what's even more ridiculous here is that King was a long time supporter of foreign terrorist organization, the IRA, including supposedly endorsing an attack on a police station that killed nine people. I wonder if he felt that the UK government should have used the same secret surveillance techniques against the IRA?

King wasn't done there, apparently. Following that statement, he went on Face the Nation and apparently said with a straight face that the public referring to the NSA's activity as "spying" or "snooping" was slandering the NSA and somehow diminishes their patriotism. Really. The man is apparently serious.

“These people in the NSA are patriots,” King said. “Probably what’s annoyed me the most over the last several months is people casually using words like ‘spying,’ ‘snooping,’ ‘what is the NSA up to now?’ Does anybody think General Alexander wants to snoop on America? I think that demeans the whole political dialogue, and that’s why I wish the president would be more outgoing and defend the NSA lot more than he did.”

“This has really been a slander on the thousand of good men and women who every day dedicate their lives to our country, and particularly General Alexander, who is as patriotic as anyone I have ever met in government or anywhere,” King said. “There is too much loose talk here. Every time i hear ‘snooping’ and ‘spying’, it just drives me crazy. We know what these men and women are doing, and they’re absolutely dedicated patriots.”

Meanwhile, King is not the only one in Congress who is upset that the President even hinted at reforms and transparency. House Speaker John Boehner issued a slightly less inflammatory statement arguing that the President must not back down on keeping the program intact, despite the fact that (again) there is no evidence that it has been necessary in stopping a single terrorist attack.

Transparency is important, but we expect the White House to insist that no reform will compromise the operational integrity of the program. That must be the president’s red line, and he must enforce it. Our priority should continue to be saving American lives, not saving face.”

Actually, I thought our priority should be protecting the Constitution -- including the 4th Amendment -- but it appears that many members of Congress have forgotten that little requirement.

Filed Under: barack obama, ed snowden, john boehner, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king, snooping, spying

Rep. Mike Rogers Blocking Other Congressional Reps From Access To Info On NSA Surveillance

from the look-at-that dept

When the Ed Snowden leaks first hit the Guardian and the Washington Post, many officials claimed that there was full oversight from Congress of these programs and that everyone was aware of them. In fact, President Obama himself declared:

"When it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program," Obama said to reporters last Friday.

And other defenders insisted, at the very least, that anyone could get a full briefing -- if they just asked for it:

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, chimed in later: "We provided detailed briefings and papers on this to explain the law, to explain the process it was governing," he said on NBC News last Saturday.

And then Monday on Fox News, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who's on the House Intelligence Committee, told his colleagues to stop whining: "You know, these members of Congress who said they didn't know about it — they could have gotten a briefing whenever they wanted to."

Oh really? Even back then, many in Congress said that was hogwash, and that it was incredibly difficult to get the details of these programs out of those who knew about them. While there were these "briefings" that Clapper and King mention above, they're anything but clear. As some noted, the "briefings" don't really brief you on anything -- unless you already know exactly what questions to ask:

“Sometimes these briefings are a game of 20 questions. If you don’t ask exactly the right question, you don’t get the answer,” said Harman.

Either way, Glenn Greenwald's latest shows that the claims that any member of Congress can simply find out what's going on is flat out false -- so we can add that to the list of "lies" from those defending the NSA surveillance programs. Greenwald highlights how two Congressional Representatives -- Morgan Griffith and Alan Grayson -- shared with him their attempts to get access to certain details about the NSA surveillance program. Griffith sent over a bunch of requests to the House Intelligence Committee... and got back nothing, even as he asked that his request be expedited so he could vote knowledgeably on the Amash amendment. Instead... silence.

Even worse, however, is the completely obnoxious response that Grayson received from (you guessed it!) Rep. Mike Rogers, saying that his request had been denied:

On June 19, Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee requesting several documents relating to media accounts about the NSA. Included among them were FISA court opinions directing the collection of telephone records for Americans, as well as documents relating to the PRISM program.

But just over four weeks later, the Chairman of the Committee, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, wrote to Grayson informing him that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".

Oh, and it gets worse. Grayson spoke to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (basically the number two guy on the Intelligence Committee after Rogers) and was told that "he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." A staff member for Grayson asked the Intelligence Committee for the details of the voice vote, including the member-by-member voting. The response?

Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."

Say what? Here is a Congressional Representative -- who we are told over and over again can have full access to this information -- being told by the NSA's staunchest defenders, Rep. Mike Rogers, that his request is denied "by a voice vote" and then told that the details of that vote are now classified? At some point, you have to recognize that Rogers and the House Intelligence Committee are out of control. I realize they're trying to do damage control, but denying such direct requests from a Congressional Representative is really quite stunning.

And that's not all. Looking through the email exchange, it notes that Grayson had spoken to NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis to find out more about the program, and was requesting a follow up meeting. There are then a whole series of follow up emails with Grayson's office repeatedly trying to schedule a meeting. Finally, they are told that someone from the House Intelligence Committee would be calling to "close the loop," and there's a note that "closing the loop" meant merely calling to tell Grayson that he could not have a follow up meeting with the NSA.

It's no secret that Grayson has been one of the vocal critics of the surveillance program, but now the House Intelligence Committee, led by Mike Rogers, is looking to actively block him from doing his job, denying him access to the very documents, individuals and briefings that all the defenders of the program have said repeatedly are open to all Congressional reps. It really makes you wonder: what are they so afraid of?

Filed Under: alan grayson, barack obama, congress, house intelligence committee, james clapper, mike rogers, morgan griffith, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, peter king

Dear Politicians: Exposing US Dirty Laundry Isn't Aiding The Enemy

from the words-have-meaning dept

Allow me to be nostalgic for a moment, because I remember a time when words used to actually mean something. I remember when terrorism actually meant terrorism and wasn't just a trump card of a word used by the government to do whatever the hell they want. I seem to recall a glorious era when hacking was hacking and not just sitting down at the local library computer lab and screwing with someone who forgot to log out of Facebook.

And you know what other phrase I remember having an actual sensible meaning? Aiding the enemy. Unfortunately, that phrase too is apparently going to be co-opted by a group of horribly cynical jackwagons over the coming weeks. We already talked about Rep. Peter King, proud supporter of the IRA, a terrorist organization, and his confusion between where reporting on actions taken against the American people end and national security begins. I'm a bit unclear on how the American people knowing what a secretive arm of the government is doing to its own citizens compromises national security, unless of course Rep. King means that the government is about to have to deal with a severely pissed off electorate. But it's only going to get worse, now that NSA leak-master Edward Snowden has added that the USA regularly hacks China.

The Morning Post said it had seen documents but was unable to verify allegations of U.S. hacking of networks in Hong Kong and mainland China since 2009. Snowden told the paper that some of the targets included the Chinese University of Hong Kong, public officials and students. The documents also "point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets," the newspaper reported.

Oh, lordy lord, next you'll be telling us there ain't no Santa Claus. The percentage of Americans that already assumed this was going on could probably be roughly estimated as all of them. Still, watch what will happen next. Already we've heard claims that Snowden's leak has endangered American lives, without a single explanation as to what the hell that could possibly mean. He initially leaked a story about domestic spying, unlike that which was leaked by Bradley Manning. Now there is noise about how Snowden is aiding the enemy. But what enemy? We aren't at war with China.

And besides that, exposing the government for taking part in the kind of thing that we decry everyone else doing isn't aiding the enemy, it's just embarrassing the shit out of our domestic agencies. Hell, it was less than a week ago that President Obama met with Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, in part to demand that the Chinese cut out their hacking.

In the official's discussion with Reuters, he or she said that Obama will ask that Xi "abide by international norms and affirm clear rules of the road." The U.S. president also wants to tell Xi that any cyberattacks originating from China are the government's responsibility.

Snowden's leak will likely torpedo any positives that came out of that meeting, but that still isn't aiding the enemy. That phrase used to mean something. It meant helping get weapons to nations with which we are at war, or to terrorist organizations (you know, like Peter King did in working with an organization that helped finance the IRA). Or providing troop positions, military plans, or money to the enemy. It also meant giving intelligence to the enemy. Who the hell is the enemy here? It can't be China, since we aren't at war with them. It can't be the press since, despite King's wish, we aren't at war with them either. That just leaves the target of this massive data slurp. You and I. And if we're the enemy Snowden is accused of aiding, then we're all in a great deal of trouble.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king

Rep. Peter King Lies About Glenn Greenwald, Uses Those Lies To Say Greenwald Should Be Arrested & Prosecuted

from the the-politicians-we-elect dept

We already mentioned how terrorist supporter Rep. Pete King has said that journalists reporting on government leaks exposing blatant abuse of power should be prosecuted, and rather than admit that he misspoke, he appears to be doubling down... by flat out lying. He went on Fox News to specifically call out Glenn Greenwald and claim that legal action should be taken against him, mainly based on the entirely false claim that Greenwald is threatening to reveal the names of CIA agents and assets. The problem is this is not true. Greenwald has made no such threats or even suggested anything like that. But King bases his entire attack on Greenwald on these false claims. According to the summary at TPM:

"I'm talking about Greenwald. Greenwald, not only did he disclose this information, he has said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that," King said. "The last time that was done in this country, we saw the CIA station chief murdered in Greece. No right is absolute and even the press has certain restrictions. I think it should be very targeted, very selective and certainly a very rare exception. But in this case, when you have someone who's disclosed secrets like this and threatens to release more, then to me, yes, there has to be, legal action should be taken against him. This is a very unusual case with life and death implications for Americans."

Later on in the interview, King is asked about whether Greenwald's existing leaks should lead to prosecution, and King says yes, that this is clearly being done to "hurt Americans." When it's pointed out to him that Greenwald will (quite rightly) say that what he's doing is to help Americans by exposing abuse of power, King again says that because Greenwald has threatened to reveal CIA agents (again, a totally false statement), it shows his intent is harm.

Fox News: Well, Glenn Greenwald will say he's trying to help America.

King: Well, first of all, he's not. To me, what shows his intent, is his saying he's threatening to release the names of CIA agents. There's no way that helps the United States. And that, to me, shows his motivation.

Hmm. And what "motivation" does it show when an elected official blatantly lies about a reporter revealing abuses of power from the federal government, and claims that reporter should be arrested and prosecuted for doing his job, based on those lies. Also, Fox News, perhaps next time you speak to Rep. Pete King, you can point out that he's been lying to you.

Filed Under: cia, first amendment, glenn greenwald, nsa, peter king, slander, surveillance

Rep. Peter King Says Reporters Should Be Prosecuted For Reporting On Government Leaks

from the that-whole-first-amendment-thing-sure-is-a-bitch dept

Rep. Peter King, apparently, is not a fan of the US Constitution that he's been sworn to uphold. In the past, he wanted Wikileaks put on the official terrorist list, argued that the Boston bombing meant we needed less freedom and more surveillance, and now has announced that reporters should be prosecuted if they report on leaked classified material. Apparently the whole concept of the First Amendment and whistleblowing is foreign to Rep. King, despite the fact that they're some of the fundamental parts of what America is based on.

"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said.

"I think on something of this magnitude, there is an obligation both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something that would so severely compromise national security."

Of course, as the article correctly points out, publishing classified information is not a crime, and trying to criminalize it would almost certainly go against the First Amendment. Of course, as we've noted in the past, Peter King is against terrorism, unless the terrorists are Irish. Then he's all for it. Apparently, overreactions, complete misunderstanding of the law and hypocrisy all go hand in hand.

Filed Under: classified info, ed snowden, first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, peter king, terrorism

Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance

from the several-CCTV-contractors-nod-in-sage-agreement dept

You knew it was coming. Former DHS official Stewart Baker got the ball rolling with his atrocious attempt to portray the ACLU and the EFF as hacker-and-terrorist sympathizers. A few politicians bravely read the tea leaves (while the tea was still brewing!) and declared the Boston bombing to be Exhibit A in the argument for tougher immigration laws.

Now it's time for those who love surveillance cameras to stand up and claim a piece of this tragedy as their own. An article in the Wall Street Journal collects a few quotes from some political camera enthusiasts who believe this successful manhunt justifies increased surveillance by law enforcement.

"They had to piece together I don't know how many thousands of videos," said Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who is on the House Committee on Homeland Security. "I think CCTV [closed-circuit television] cameras are much more needed in urban areas."

The FBI and police already had "how many thousands of videos," and yet it's still not enough. More cameras are "needed." King continues this line of thinking in an interview with MSNBC.

So, I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that. So yes, I do favor more cameras. They're a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us.

Constantly? That's an interesting ridiculous take on reality. (The odds of an American being killed by a terrorist attack are effectively zero.) King must spend plenty of sleepless, terrorized nights chatting with Mike Rogers, whose fear of hackers prevents him from catching any shuteye. Either that or he's been chatting with the FBI and the NYPD who it seems can barely go a week without creating and shutting down another terrorist "plot."

[Peter King worries about terrorists... but only if they're Muslim. He's perfectly fine with white Irish terrorists, seeing as he went on record during the 80s stating his support for the IRA, which notably bombed a shopping center during the Christmas season, killing six and injuring 90. He was very concerned about their civil rights. Those were his kind of terrorists. These ones, not so much.]

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg also feels the bombing in Boston justifies extensive surveillance in New York City... or more than it already has.

"The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this past week. He added the network now has the ability to "alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner."

Personally, I could do without the "terrible reminders" and the "investments." Bloomberg claims the tragedy justifies the surveillance, but there's very little effort being made to curtail either sides of this false equation. New York law enforcement seems to spend most of its time hanging out in mosques or shoving non-white male youths up against the nearest wall for a little of the old stop-and-frisk.

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. Apparently, we "need" to increase surveillance because awful things happen. But when awful things fail to happen, no one in the surveillance "community" takes the time to wonder if perhaps the current surveillance efforts might be excessive. Surveillance, like any other vehicle of government control, only expands over time. Various government agencies will once again be asking you to trade privacy for security. The problem is these agencies can't promise security. The only thing they can truly guarantee is "taking" your privacy.

Filed Under: boston, peter king, surveillance

Treasury Dept. Won't Put Wikileaks On Terrorist List; Tells Rep. King It Doesn't Meet The Criteria

from the not-everyone's-crazy dept

Following the request by Rep. Peter King that the Treasury Department list Wikileaks and Julian Assange on various terrorist/organized crime lists, which would prohibit US companies from dealing with them, the Treasury Department has, quite reasonably, said it will not do that. A spokesperson noted that there is not nearly enough evidence for such a designation:

"We do not have evidence at this time as to Jullian Assange or WikiLeaks meeting criteria under which OFAC [the Office of Foreign Assets Control] may designate persons and place them on the SDN [Specially Designated Nationals] list."

Filed Under: peter king, treasury department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Rep. Peter King Wants Treasury Dept. To Put Wikileaks On Terrorist List

from the overreact-much? dept

Apparently Rep. Peter King is in a competition with Senator Joe Lieberman to see who can overreact more to Wikileaks. It seems like a neck-and-neck competition, with Peter King's brand of craziness potentially taking the lead. King, of course, was the guy who insisted that Wikileaks should be declared a terrorist organization and claimed (with nothing whatsoever to back this up) that the cable leak was worse than a military attack. His latest move is to ask Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to add Wikileaks to the Treasury Department's "Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List," which is usually used to designate terrorist and organized crime operations.

So while Lieberman merely used political pressure to get companies to block or censor Wikileaks, King wants it to become official government policy that no US companies or individuals should be doing anything with Wikileaks. Overreact much?

Filed Under: peter king, terrorist list, timothy geithner, treasury department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks