Slashdot Mirror


US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets

Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!" From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

22 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Since when by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do politicians follow the law?

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
    1. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looking like the good guy matters less by the day. "My party, right or wrong" has been the battle cry of American politics for a long while but the lengths to which this is take in the past few administrations has become insane.

    2. Re:Since when by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:Since when by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, there's an important decision to be made.

      The OATH of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that he takes before the entire world during his inauguration clearly states that his duty in that position is "to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States".

      However, George Bush stated that his job was to be "The Decider".

      And Obama repeatedly states at every interview and speech that his "first priority and duty as president" is "to protect the American people".

      So.. no, they don't have "the law" (ie, the Constitution) anywhere in their realm of concern.

      Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

    4. Re:Since when by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even though Obama is a fucking Constitutional lawyer, I believe.

      The purpose of being a Constitutional lawyer is to perform mental gymnastics creating exceptions to clearly-stated language such as "shall not infringe" and "shall make no law".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Since when by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Is it legal" - Trade Federation

      "I will make it legal" - Darth Sidious

      This is the lie of the big government proponents. They love to cloak themselves in "legality", and skirt around the issue of whether or not something is right (correct, moral). Is Snowden a traitor or a hero? Well that depends upon whether you look at what he did as being legal or moral, because those questions result in two different outcomes.

      Next time you here someone say "but they broke the law" ask them if Rosa Parks broke the law.

      Not all laws are just laws.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Several times? A few one-offs hardly represent a mandate from the people when you're dealing with a combined legislative body of 535. The US legislature has the approval rating of a two bit whore at a church gathering and you call a handful of incumbents being ousted by other people normally from the same party a reason to think that Americans are blind to politics beyond the little Rs and Ds that follow a politicians name?

      The fact that you called them "insurgents" speaks volumes to your own political outlook. When the so-called Tea Party looks like a radical departure from the Republican party you know the blinders are on. While the Tea Party did have a good grassroots structure behind it at one point, today it's just another faction of a slightly fractured party. It certainly isn't enough to think that there is serious momentum from the status quo. Even more so apparent when you consider where the "Tea Party" is today compared to these grass roots. It's safe to say the Tea Party would be pretty much forgotten if it weren't for the Democrats trying to whip anyone they didn't like into the mold of a "teabagger."

    7. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tea Partiers are just gullible Republicans who've been tricked by Koch brothers money into thinking they AREN'T just supporting the rich and powerful.

    8. Re:Since when by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The same could be said for the Democrats. Yesterday I had seen an interesting placement of links on a new site... one was about how Michelle Obama had hired some high priced fashion advisor while the next link said that 76% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Barak spent more in both elections then the "big money" Republicans.

      When it comes right down to it the big political parties are turning into the next aristocracy and their followers turn a blind eye to their excesses and abuses. We can't afford to offer tours of the White House but we can bring in AAA rated pop stars to do birthday parties? Are you kidding me?

      I don't believe a Republican administration would be that much different.

      It's a party, to be sure... and you're not invited unless you can write some big money checks.

    9. Re:Since when by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not immoral. He swore an oath for his security clearance. An oath like the president or any soldier. Its first clause to to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America. The last is to perform the duties of his position.

      He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.

  2. Who is in charge? by Subm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?

    1. Re:Who is in charge? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  3. Re:Reactions to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about instead of creating new legislation, they repeal some old bills. Like the National Security Act of 1947.

  4. Secret courts? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings

    What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.

  5. Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, generating public outcry is probably the best thing that they can do. There are only a couple good senators and representatives in the US congress and they're not going to overturn these awful laws by themselves. Instead, all they can do is call out the other legislators on their supposed claims of government oversight keeping these programs in check, because obviously that's not happening. The NSA, and probably all other US (and UK, and other) intelligence agencies have already been exposed several times for their lies to the public (and this goes back decades as well).

    So the best thing that these good guy legislators can do is expose the programs and discredit the people that support them. That will get a lot of people who are on the fence to fall on their side.

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  6. Re:No real congressional over-site by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we had some people in Congress and the Senate who were genuine leaders with a modicum of courage and respect for the oath they swore on The Constitution, they'd go public. Let's see Big Brother arrest some of our elected officials for "treason" because they tell their constituents what the government is doing.

    After all of Obama's speeches telling us about how the programs have congressional oversight, I've been demanding that my elected asshats in DC tell me exactly who knows the details. No luck yet. I've suggested that it must be the intelligence committees, but my Rep. and Senators won't give me any specifics.

  7. Re:Reactions to this by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or the espionage act of 1917. Created with the noble intent of going after people who spoke against joining WWI.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  8. Re:Congress upset someone is lying to them? by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you really mean breaking the constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional rights are binary, you have them or you do not.

    Not that I disagree with the main point of your post, but in practice constitutional rights are rarely as black and white as you seem to think.

    You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You have the right to bear arms but not the right to own a suitcase nuke.

    Personally I don't think anyone should be aspiring to a justice system that rigidly enforces the letter of law without any regards to the spirit of the law. All that does is encourage people to go searching for loopholes in the language, since you'll never be able to codify the law so perfectly that it won't require any interpretation.

    --
    I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
  9. The media by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So... up until this NSA/Snowden incident, I believed the media was incompetent. Not malicious... just out to make a buck and real news was expensive to do research on. But now it's clear. The coverage on this entire affair by CNN, CBS, NBC, etc... is flat out propaganda. There is no question that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. It is, without a doubt, a violation of our rights. Snowden really is a political activist. The US would be applauding such behavior of a Chinese citizen, and we would provide them asylum in a heartbeat. The presidents that allowed this to continue (Bush and Obama) should be charged in criminal court for this. Obama, at the very least should be impeached. The courts involved, the members of congress that were aware, they should all lose their offices at the very least. The NSA should be shut down permanently. We still have a chance to save the republic... but it's a small one. Everyone in this country needs to vote 3rd party going forward. If you vote R or D in any election in the future, you're a traitor to your country and we should all be ashamed of you.

  10. Re:Half right by oreaq · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad we had all that illegal surveillance going to prevent this attack.

  11. Re:Good to see senators at least doing their job by TheP4st · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They did little more than slap the NSA in it's fingers saying "naughty boy!" while at the same time condoning the appalling concept of secret courts.

    "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold