Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Head of NSA Calls For Obama To Reject NSA Commission Recommendations

Posted by Unknown on from the not-what-you're-thinking dept.

An anonymous reader writes that USA Today reports "Retired general Michael Hayden ... called on President Obama Monday to ... reject many of the recommendations of the commission he appointed to rein in NSA surveillance ... 'President Obama now has the burden of simply doing the right thing,' ... 'And I think some of the right things with regard to the commission's recommendations are not the popular things. They may not poll real well right now. They'll poll damn well after the next attack ...' ... The commission ... said the recommendations were designed to increase transparency, accountability and oversight at the NSA. Hayden ... oversaw the launch of some of the controversial programs ... He defended them as effective and properly overseen by congressional intelligence committees and a special court. 'Right now, since there have been no abuses and almost all the court decisions on this program have held that it's constitutional, I really don't know what problem we're trying to solve by changing how we do this,' he said."

18 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Lame duck President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He has no incentive to change anything. How it 'polls' is irrelevant. Someone with 2016 aspirations will need to make this their issue.

    1. Re:Lame duck President by morari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All very true, unfortunately. Obama has been little more than a continuation of Dubya's reign. It's too bad the American people are so divided, so beholden to their preferred "team", or else they might notice how thoroughly they're being fucked regardless of which party is in power.

      And here I was, sincerely hoping for a Socialist, non-Christian president. If only Fox news were correct now and then. :(

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:Lame duck President by AJH16 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a little more insidious when you realize that is intentional and that both media and politicians fight to keep it that way. They intentionally use the most divisive issues possible and make their careers by making people as extreme as possible. It's horrible for the country, but great for accumulating power and wealth.

      --
      AJ Henderson
  2. This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll poll damn well after the next attack

    The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by WolfgangPG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree. The NSA may or may not have stopped any attacks with this snooping. They can of course point to attacks they claim to have stopped, but sadly we can't verify any of that. Instead we can point to the Boston Marathon Bombings where the US Government was informed by other countries to watch out for these guys and we still did nothing.

      We also have the Fort Hood shooting. Where any Army person was using army computers to contact terrorists and went on to shoot up an army base. Where was the NSA there?

      "Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of e-mail communications between Hasan and the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years. The failure to prevent the shootings led the Defense Department and the FBI to commission investigations, and for Congress to hold hearings."

    2. Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, he's demonstrably wrong: After the whole Boston Marathon bombing went down, the support for the NSA spying went down, not up. A logical reason for this: the NSA had clearly failed to catch terrorists despite all their willful violation of the rights of all Americans, so the benefits for all that intrusion were approximately 0.

      Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.

      Hell, on the roads, every month is September, 2001. Roughly a 9/11 worth of people die every single month in vehicle accidents.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:This just in, spy wants spy rules to stay by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree. The NSA may or may not have stopped any attacks with this snooping... We also have the Fort Hood shooting. Where any Army person was using army computers to contact terrorists and went on to shoot up an army base. Where was the NSA there?...

      Allow me to take this just a small step further. What good has the NSA spying been in preventing any mass shooting attacks on Americans?

      Tell me about how the NSA prevented mass killings (of 4 or more people) in Sandy Hook, New York, Paris(TX), Tulsa, Callison, Terrell, Phoenix, Rice, Washington DC, Dallas, Clarksberg, Santa Monica, etc, etc, etc?

      Please don't tell me that NSA spying is a matter of definition. Mass death is mass death, regardless of country of origin, skin color, or religious bent.

  3. That is the guy.... by jimpop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..who was on guard duty before 9/11.... why should anyone listen to him?

  4. His argument is false by bazmail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He argues that it is legal because it is useful. Using that logic, I should be allowed use claymore mines to protect my property from intruders. Indiscriminate, illegal but probably effective. He should remember, if you subvert the constitution, you corrode the very fabric of the nation. We're becoming just another regime.

  5. Well, that is Fucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not an America, although I am a citizen of one of the 5eyes - the one with a fundamentally criminal past.

    Freedom is about being about being able to live your life as you choose. Freedom is about disagreeing with other peoples' choices as to how they live their life, yet accepting that choice, as long as it doesn't to detrimentally affect yours.

    "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

    Question mark is very well placed. The question mark was in the positive for around 200 years, however I think it is conclusive now. The answer is "Nope."

    There is no question about America now about being home of the free and the brave. Terrorism won, because terrorism is about causing terror, and therefore ridiculous levels of measures against it.

    (heh, this post will probably get me on the NSA list, but I'm probably already there anyway.)

  6. Re:The key word is... by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His claim about there being no abuses is a bald-faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything in that sentence after the first major lie?

  7. Record of Prevented Attacks by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The record of prevented attacks, according to the official report, is zero. The surveillance programs the NSA runs have prevented no attacks. They have, however, fundamentally undermined our Constitution and the entire rule of law in the United States of America. The citizenry has been watching, stunned, while the Congress, Whitehouse, and courts in DC have been wiping their collective behind with our foundational document, and are now looking at each other, waiting to see who's gonna pick up the gun and put the mad dog down. The criminals in DC and Wall Street misread the apparent lack of reaction with acquiescence or agreement. It's not. It's the entire mass of the country, who already have their hands full with many, many deep problems, discovering this massive systemic betrayal and trying to process what the best course of action is. If DC does not act now to channel things into productive reform, they will explode to the detriment of all, but especially to the detriment of DC and their masters on Wall Street.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  8. Re:Any chance we can act like adults this time? by freax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with this. I'm also really pissed that secret services refuse to create more transparency and do a lot of things that are not lawful (like dragnet surveillance, indiscriminate mass surveillance of ordinary law abiding citizens, economic espionage, etc).

    That, however, doesn't mean that we'll have any progress by calling workers at the NSA traitors who should be killed or even heavily sanctioned. Processes should however be fixed.

    I do think transparency and legality of their profession has to come back (by following the processes and requirements, and having a public debate on all this).

    It's not a deal society can make to allow a surveillance police state (even if it's here already; it still doesn't make it OK for it to stay). The US can and should make legislation deals with the EU on this if the fear is that internationally laws and processes aren't worth a lot. It can make such deals even with China or Russia, and with other BRIC countries too. There is no need to have invasive non-targeted worldwide surveillance of ordinary citizens for America to be much more safe than before 9/11. Whoever in the US military and/or government who's telling you that is lying.

    Right now, however, the US is showing absurd distrust in the rest of the world and actions done by your NSA as being seen in the population worldwide as military action against them. They are ordinary citizens with no intent to harm anybody in the US. But by invading their privacy so insanely massively you Americans ARE going to create a lot of nutcases for decades to come.

    Stop it.

  9. After the next attack? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "After the next attack"

    Wait a second - you mean that you admit the NSA is not able to prevent the attacks? OK, so explain again why it is a necessary, nay, "vital" government agency?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:After the next attack? by aviators99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NSA *is* the "next attack". It's an enemy combatant's dream. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

  10. Because of "OOH SKEERY!" by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's right in one way. It's probably not going to change.

    And then he pulls the boogie man out of his pocket.

    "The next attack."

    "The next attack."

    So we're supposed to just huddle up in a corner and live in fear for the rest of forever. Just so that, MAYBE, some day, they catch another underpants bomber?

    Uhm...

    Not to put too fine a point on that, FUCK NO!

    At some point, reality sets in and people need to realize that The Real World (not the stupid "reality TV show") is NOT a safe place. And NO amount of watching will curtail EVERY attempt.

    Nor will throwing away our rights like a hot potato make us any safer.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  11. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at it from the outside, i.e not being a US citizen:

    1. You piss of everybody else on the planet, so do not expect any goodwill.
    2. There were abuses, please do google loveint.
    3. Snowden walked ot of NSA with *all* their goodies, so how says that that did not happen before ? He was just the first to go public with the abuses.
    4. How can any US citizen still talk about the "land of the free", that is totally ridiculous and hypocrite at the same time.
    5. You do have the best democracy that money can buy