5 ms·

I'm kind of surprised they let him in the Senate Intelligence Committee for so long. It seems like everyone else in that committee is basically an "anti-Wyden"

by mtgx 8y ago

I'm kind of surprised they let him in the Senate Intelligence Committee for so long. It seems like everyone else in that committee is basically an "anti-Wyden" or pro-complete surveillance. I think the only reason they haven't tried to push him out is because they don't want to put him in a position where his ethics will compel him to tell everyone exactly what the intelligence community has been doing. Wyden generally tries to get the intelligence executives to come out with the truth themselves, but 99% of the time they don't or they mislead the public, and there's little he can do about it. As a Senator Wyden has complete immunity to blow the whistle on whatever national security intelligence he wants on the Senate floor, but he's too much of a nice guy to do that - unless they force him out with their shenanigans.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It seems like everyone else in that committee is basically an "anti-Wyden" or pro-complete surveillance. Along with Wyden, Harris and Heinrich voted against approving the renewal of Section 702, and while Feinstein didn't vote against renewal, she did before that join with Harris and others in supporting an amendment, which was defeated, which would have added a warrant requirement before accessing the contents of American’s communications pulled in in the course of surveillance under 702. So, while Wyden may be the strongest anti-surveillance voice, it is not th case that the rest of the Committee (particularly on the Democratic side) is unilaterally pro-surveillance anti-Wydens.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > Feinstein didn't vote against renewal, she ...[supported] an amendment, which was defeated I'm curious if anyone knows the Washington dirt on this one. Feinstein has a long history of being aggressively pro-surveillance, far more than basically any other Democrat. (Something to do with having her house bombed and shot at early in her career, perhaps...) For Congresspeople with awkward positions, it's pretty standard to take the occasional favorable-looking vote on something you know is doomed to fail. So... would Feinstein have known in advance that the 702 amendment was doomed? And, harder to prove, would she have voted differently if it hadn't been?
- mtgx 8y ago
  Feinstein has almost single-handedly pushed for two renewals of FISA 702. So I wouldn't give her too much credit on that.
kevinmchugh 8y ago
I don't know if it's because he's a nice guy. I think you identified the reason earlier. He's avoided direct whistle-blowing because that could get him removed from the Intelligence Committee. The only reason the committee hasn't tried to force him out is because he'd talk, and he won't talk so he doesn't get forced out. He'd rather be there and be the bulwark, and occasionally get people to perjure themselves. It's an odd game-theoretic stalemate.
jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
Wyden has said that he personally takes his oaths of confidentiality quite seriously and so seeks to accomplish what he can while staying within them.

by mtgx 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It seems like everyone else in that committee is basically an "anti-Wyden" or pro-complete surveillance. Along with Wyden, Harris and Heinrich voted against approving the renewal of Section 702, and while Feinstein didn't vote against renewal, she did before that join with Harris and others in supporting an amendment, which was defeated, which would have added a warrant requirement before accessing the contents of American’s communications pulled in in the course of surveillance under 702. So, while Wyden may be the strongest anti-surveillance voice, it is not th case that the rest of the Committee (particularly on the Democratic side) is unilaterally pro-surveillance anti-Wydens.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> Feinstein didn't vote against renewal, she ...[supported] an amendment, which was defeated I'm curious if anyone knows the Washington dirt on this one. Feinstein has a long history of being aggressively pro-surveillance, far more than basically any other Democrat. (Something to do with having her house bombed and shot at early in her career, perhaps...) For Congresspeople with awkward positions, it's pretty standard to take the occasional favorable-looking vote on something you know is doomed to fail. So... would Feinstein have known in advance that the 702 amendment was doomed? And, harder to prove, would she have voted differently if it hadn't been?
mtgx 8y ago
Feinstein has almost single-handedly pushed for two renewals of FISA 702. So I wouldn't give her too much credit on that.

kevinmchugh 8y ago

I don't know if it's because he's a nice guy. I think you identified the reason earlier. He's avoided direct whistle-blowing because that could get him removed from the Intelligence Committee. The only reason the committee hasn't tried to force him out is because he'd talk, and he won't talk so he doesn't get forced out. He'd rather be there and be the bulwark, and occasionally get people to perjure themselves. It's an odd game-theoretic stalemate.

jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago

Wyden has said that he personally takes his oaths of confidentiality quite seriously and so seeks to accomplish what he can while staying within them.