White House Says Congress Was Briefed 13 Times on Surveillance Programs

[steve2470]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Senior Obama administration officials, including the directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and of national intelligence, have held 13 classified hearings and briefings for members of Congress since 2009 to explain the broad authority they say they have to sweep up electronic records for national security purposes, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The administration, by disclosing the briefings, sought to push back on claims by Democrats and Republicans in Congress that they were either not aware of programs to mine vast amounts of Internet data and business telephone records or were insufficiently briefed on the details.

Lawmakers said that what they knew was vague and broad — and that strict rules of classification prevented them from truly debating the programs or conducting proper oversight.

In separate but identical letters sent on Oct. 19, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich told two of Congress’s most outspoken critics of the efforts, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, both Democrats, that in December 2009 and February 2011 the Justice Department and intelligence agencies provided a classified document to Congress describing the surveillance efforts in detail.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/politics/officials-say-congress-was-fully-briefed-on-surveillance.html?_r=0

[OKNancy]

1. an idiot Oklahoma Congressman denies he was briefed

http://www.newson6.com/story/22539175/markwayne-mullin-denies-presidents-claim-congress-was-briefed-on

I can't stop laughing. He just took office in January. BTW, he is a plumber and dumb as a box of rocks.

[Cha]

5. Anybody can get elected and make up shit as they go along

in this country.

[juajen]

23. Congress should be treated as we treat our children.

Repeat after me: Now, repeat after me once again: Now, repeat after me once again, ad nausea-um.

[Kahuna]

2. Hmmm. This issue, if used properly could be used to rid the nation of

those repukes in 2014.

[PatrynXX]

12. after the wolves fiasco don't much care

on Dems alone they look stupid by not attending a classified meeting.

[Cha]

3. Don't care.

[Corruption Inc]

4. So how does that make spying on innocent Americans OK?

So what if a 6% approval rate Congress was told and is now lying about being told?

[BenzoDia]

6. Everyone wants some transparency into this right? It's important for us to gain some info o

Congress' role.

[Andy823]

15. Not everybody wants transparency

Some posters only want to lay the blame on the president for one reason or another. Those who have complaints need to take their complaints to their members of congress. Find out how they voted every time these bills came up and go from there. Hold them responsible for their votes.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Well, Obama said he wants Americans to be "comfortable" with this snooping shit

And he's right now cozying up to the Chinese premier as they talk about government snooping in their respective countries.

[JoePhilly]

7. FISA court (created under Carter) was also told and approved.

Which means 2 branches of our government (judicial and legislative) had oversight over the third (executive).

That's how its supposed to work.

[enlightenment]

27. FISA court -

federal judges appointed by fiat, secret hearings, rarely any dissenting opinion, and rubber stamps almost every request that comes before them.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

[24601]

29. Every individual serving rotation on the FISA court has been through Presidential Nomination and

Senate Confirmation as a Federal Judge.

The only exception would be a Presidential recess-appointed judge. I believe that there aren't any and that it's unlikely a judge would accept such a limited appointment.

[enlightenment]

30. Citation please,

because the FISA website says differently.

[24601]

31. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html

"Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits."

The CJUS is constrained to pick only federal district court judges, They have all been through the nomination/confirmation process or they are not federal judges.

[enlightenment]

32. They are federal judges but they

are selected FROM the positions they hold in "real life" to serve on the FISA court. Those positions are "authorized [by] the Chief Justice of the United States".

You're splitting hairs. I stated they were federal judges - and you and I both know that means they went through a confirmation process for the judicial seat they hold outside the FISA court.

They are not nominated or confirmed for the FISA court through Congress - they are selected by the Chief Justice. That clearly circumvents the advice and consent function.

[JoePhilly]

36. You are the one splitting hairs.

Now you are claiming that a different branch of government, other than the Judicial, should select these judges.

Which other branch ... the EXECUTIVE???? If that were true, than the President (who many here don't seem to trust) would be able to HAND PICK the judges he wants.

Or do you mean CONGRESS should pick the judges the judicial branch uses?

Hey, maybe the Judicial branch should pick who sits on the various legislative committees.

Bottom line. The model for how this works was put together a long time ago and yet its only NOW that so many have become apoplectic about how it works.

[enlightenment]

37. Look,

learn the process.

The Judiciary does not nominate or confirm judges. The Executive nominates and the Legislative confirms.

Federal judges - after nomination and confirmation - sit a single "bench". They may move - temporarily - to other seats in other districts, if need arises, or they may be temporarily selected to serve on particular committees for review of cases. That is normal - and it is also the way the feds have gotten around the nomination and confirmation process for the FISA court. They make the assignment temporary and they call it a "Court of Review".

Since you obviously don't understand the basic confirmation process, I get why you don't see the problems inherent in creating a separate court of hand-selected judges who sit in secret, hearing "cases" that allow for no dissenting opinion to obtain warrants that do not offer probable cause.

Yes, the basic model was put together a long time ago - and it has been criticized many times since then. Some of us have been around long enough to find it problematic regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office. This isn't about politics - it is about the fundamental rights acknowledged in the Constitution and what it means when an administration, regardless of their political party, seeks to manipulate the definition of those rights.

Rights are inalienable. No government gave them to us and no government can take them away. A government can make them very difficult to exercise, however. You seem to think that's peachy. I don't. Full stop.

[24601]

39. I disagree with your interpretation. Their confirmation process makes them Article III officials

not beholden to the Executive or Legislative Branches. The CJUS is specifically nominated/confirmed; however, for example, Chief Judges are not. FISA duties are as real life as being Chief Judge.

[enlightenment]

40. I did not say they were beholden to

either the Executive or Legislative branches. I said - since the previous poster said that neither branch had anything to do with their position as federal judges - that as federal judges, they went through the same nomination and confirmation process as other federal judges.
You are incorrect that only the chief justice of the SC is nominated and confirmed - please check your facts.

[cstanleytech]

9. According to Obama the program didnt spy on americans.

Now I dont know about you but I am willing to give the president the benefit of doubt over this unless more info is revealed to prove otherwise because from what I have read so far it hasnt risen to be as big a spy issue as the News Corp one where they tapped peoples phones and actually did record phonecalls.

[PuffedMica]

18. I guess that OWS was special

Only META data was logged, nothing can be learned about an individual from some technical parameters used to operate the telecom networks. Nothing to worry about.

See the article in Salon and keep thinking there is noting wrong with storing META data.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/
[/font]

[MADem]

10. Because CONGRESS--not the guy in the WHITE HOUSE--makes LAW. nt

[Andy823]

13. Excellent point

A point that so many hear seem to forget, or just want to blame the president for all of this. Congress is the one people should be mad at since they are the ones that keep on passing these laws. If people don't like the laws, then find out how your members of congress voted and discuss it with them.

[brentspeak]

25. Who signed the Patriot Act renewal into law?

[Psephos]

33. After criticizing it heavily as a candidate.

That's the part that burns.

[askeptic]

28. As far as I know, nothing in the act REQUIRES him to break Constitutional law

So the passage is irrelevant - he isn't required to spy on Americans.

[pmorlan1]

8. But, Mr. President..

You forgot to tell us when Congress was briefed they were lied to just like during Bush years when they were lied to about torture.

Have we all forgotten this bit of history?

New story up today in The Guardian that shows how they lied to Congress on this issue.

[link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box osition1|

[asjr]

11. I take it to mean the Bush/Cheney regime.

[Berlum]

14. And Republicans lied about it 13 times. As usual.

[struggle4progress]

16. Some folks in Congress need to reread the Constitution

... Lawmakers said .. that strict rules of classification prevented them from truly debating the programs or conducting proper oversight ...

Constitution Art I Sec 6 Par 1 says: ... for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place ...

In particular, Representatives and Senators enjoy complete immunity from prosecution for anything they say in the course of a speech or debate in Congress

[24601]

38. The immunity is from the executive and judicial branches. Their own house can question them

pretty much without constraint and, when 2/3 of their house votes for it, expel the member.

So it comes down to what they prize most, their seat or their values.

[struggle4progress]

41. Hardly ever happens: five expulsions from the House and fifteen from the Senate since 1789

Three of the five House and fourteen of the fifteen Senate expulsions were related to the Civil War

[Ed Suspicious]

17. Finger pointing is lame.

[Psephos]

34. They want partisan finger pointing. A most useful distraction. n/t

[BlueStreak]

19. There is an important word in there: "Classified"

That means it was the most limited of briefings and to a very small number of Congressmen, and on the condition that none of them could talk to anybody about it.

So what is the point of such a briefing if the average representative doesn't have an opportunity to discuss it?

More BS from this increasingly authoritarian administration.

[24601]

42. The vast majority of classified material is available to every member of Congress. Most of them,

however, don't review the material.

All members have access to the (Intelligence and DoD) classified authorizations bills, if they bother to read them in approved secure areas within the capital.

There is a small subset of compartmented programs available to members of the intelligence committees. A very small subset of those are "waived" programs briefed to 8 members - and it's available also to the Majority & Minority leaders, Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tempore.

For classified (non-intelligence) programs (Other than Special Access Programs/SAPs), all members have access if they choose to exercise their prerogative to review them. Most do not.

Special Access Programs (different than Intelligence Compartmented Programs) are available to members of the Armed Service Committee and Appropriations Committee/Defense Subcommittee. Waived programs are briefed to 8 members and Majority & Minority leaders, Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tempore.

Majority and Minority Committee Chiefs have access as well. Personal staffs do not have access.

In the context of these programs, a waived program means that wider dissemination requirements are waived and only smaller numbers (Committee Chairs, Vice Chairs, Ranking members, etc.) are briefed

[BlueStreak]

43. That is simply not true.

Do you have any concept how much information is classified?

The Congress is only given crumbs. They are giving the bare minimum any department thinks they can get away with. And as we saw from this testimony, they will simply lie if that suits them.

[Herlong]

20. So.

Here we are behind the red and white and blue curtain...

Your vague equivalencies look marvelous... what are you wearing?

[snot]

21. . . . after they were bought and paid for.

[Heywood J]

24. Does that make it better? (NT)

[Adam-Bomb]

26. Of course they were briefed...

We heard from folks on both sides of the aisle who thought this was a GREAT
idea. Numbnuts like this seem to have forgotten what they are up here in D.C.
for. And why in the hell did the White House not smack this down since they knew
exactly how many times Congress was briefed? Does our President think this is a
good idea, too?

They need to be reminded FORCEFULLY and VIGOROUSLY that spying on
folks is a BAD idea.

This crap is wrong no matter who is doing it, Democrat and/or Republican.
Right and wrong is not only a side to side matter, it also goes up and down.

Jesus H. Christ.

[Kablooie]

35. So? They were briefed that American's rights were being destroyed. It's OK then?