3 ms·

... And in related news, NSA internal leadership votes to continue bulk data collection anyway. Call me overly cynical, but I suspect that the legislative bran

• jessaustin 11y ago
  Hell, the executive and the chain of command both would have a hard time forcing the hand of a recalcitrant NSA: "Joint Chief Smith, we're happy to discuss your objections to our policy, but first we'd like to review some saved communications we have that document some of your conduct. On page 2, we cover your first year at West Point..."
• tsotha 11y ago
  Only because Congress is happy with things the way they are. Letting the NSA (and other agencies) carry on with these kinds of programs gives them an out no matter what happens. If the program gets discovered and the public is upset legislators can pretend they didn't know about it. Nancy Pelosi did this rather famously, pretending she'd never been briefed on programs she was documented to have been briefed on. On the other hand, if a big terrorist attack happens and the public is in the mood for greater leeway for security services Congress can point to programs like this one and say "See, we've been looking out for you all along by authorizing intrusive data collection." This is the way legislative politics works in the US. The goal is to put yourself into a "heads I win, tails... I win" situation, and they're very good at it. To operate with principle is to risk giving your electoral opponents ammunition when you're up for office next. If Congress actually wanted to enforce its will here you would see concrete changes. But it doesn't.