7 ms·

I'm not sure where you're getting this. The NSA is not a military organization. And all organs of the executive branch are bound by law and the Constitution.

• venomsnake 11y ago
  The difference between theory in practice is greater in practice than in theory. NSA does not view itself bound by the US constitution (or the whole executive branch as a whole) and view it as a nuisance that must be at best circumvented to do their perceived job. (To the NSA guy reading this comment - have a nice day, it is tedious)
  • tsotha 11y ago
    How the agency views itself is irrelevant. Congress knows what they're doing and has always known. What you're seeing right now is the system working.
    • gpvos 11y ago
      So why would they enact a law like this?
      • tsotha 11y ago
        Because there was public support for it when it was enacted.
    • DanielBMarkham 11y ago
      What we're seeing right now is some kind of weird kabuki dance where congress pretends to shut something down by having a debate over whether to re-authorize one of several justifications NSA uses for monitoring U.S. citizens. The only reason it's considered equivalent to "shutting down the program" is that folks haven't been paying attention. As far as illegality, what the Executive has taken to doing over the last 20 years or so is lawyer-shopping until they can get an opinion that justifies what they already decided they were going to do. Then they classify both the decision and the legal justification. No information = no debate. No debate = no oversight. Very nice and easy. Problem solved. We need the NSA. But the structure of the legal system the operate in has been totally fucked up by the War on Terror. I don't even think most politicians understand the nature of the problem, much less are able to provide needed oversight.
      • tsotha 11y ago
        We have fourteen separate agencies that do overlapping intelligence gathering of one sort or another. We don't need the NSA.
      • mike_hearn 11y ago
        > We need the NSA There's no evidence of this. Many countries have nowhere near the intelligence capabilities of the 5 Eyes and yet seem to do just fine for themselves. In many ways, better than the USA.
    • simoncion 11y ago
      If the "they're" in your statement is "The Intelligence Organs", then no, Congress was absolutely (and continues to be) kept in the dark about what was (and is) going on. Senators Wyden and Udall (both members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and -therefore- privy to classified briefings and Q&A sessions delivered direct from intelligence agencies) frequently and loudly proclaimed: 0) We are prohibited from speaking specifically -to anyone- about what we have been told in our capacities as members of the Intelligence Committee. 1) If the rest of Congress and/or the American people were told what the Intelligence Committee was told, they would be horrified by the extent of the overreach and creative interpretation of law. [0] 2) The intelligence agencies habitually stonewalled any real inquiries by the Intelligence Committee into their activities. What the Committee got to do was listen to the agency's spiels, ask a few softball questions, and adjourn for the day. [0] Clearly, not all members of the Committee felt this way. Mrs. Feinstein, in particular, seemed to be very pleased with the status quo. (Big surprise, right?)
      • tsotha 11y ago
        Congress isn't above lying about this. Pelosi was dumb enough to contradict herself on that score (I could have stopped that sentence after three words). They knew. They just didn't want anyone to know they knew when the cat was out of the bag. "The CIA lied to me" sounds a lot better than "I knew what they were doing. So what?" Deflecting blame is the #1 key skill for a Congressman. Also... "prohibited"? By whom? By rules the committee itself made. That the committee can change. Federal agencies don't have the power to prevent Congress from doing a damn thing. Don't kid yourself - Congress is the problem here.
        • simoncion 11y ago
          > Congress isn't above lying about this. Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in public hearings), to the DoJ, the Supreme Court, the President, or anyone else for that matter. > Also... "prohibited"? By whom? Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Congressmen are NOT immune from prosecution that stems from their disclosure of classified information that they receive firsthand.[0] What's more, the Speech or Debate clause only protects Congressmen from arrest and detention while performing their official duties. It doesn't shield Congressmen from prosecution stemming from illegal acts performed while acting as Congressmen. So, no, Federal agencies can't prevent[1] Congressmen from revealing directly-disclosed-to-the-congressman classified information on the debate floor. But then, a Congressman can't protect himself from prosecution, fines, and jail time after the big reveal. [0] Remember that the Pentagon Papers were sent to a Congressman by a newspaper. Generally speaking, disclosure of classified information that's in the public interest by a person who is not under an obligation to control access to said information is a protected activity, as is disclosure of classified info by the press. [1] Though, they can directly discourage it by limiting cooperation with Committees and access to personnel. This would clearly be a roadblock, rather than a permanent obstruction, but it would probably serve as a permanent obstruction to dispassionate Congressmen.
• mirimir 11y ago
  The NSA is part of the Department of Defense. Its Director is Admiral Michael S. Rogers, US Navy. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is James R. Clapper, who served as a General in the US Air Force. I believe that NSA Directors are necessarily active military, while DNIs are necessarily retired. I concur with venomsnake that "The difference between theory in practice is greater in practice than in theory."
  • tsotha 11y ago
    So I looked it up, and the NSA is indeed part of DoD. But the DNI is under Homeland Security, even if he's a former military man. And I think both you and veonomsnake are grossly underestimating the culpability of Congress in all of this.
    • mirimir 11y ago
      Congress has arguably had no meaningful oversight over the NSA since the 50s. Eisenhower warned us. He wasn't just talking about defense contractors. One might say that the US has been pwned by military hackers. I highly recommend Bamford's books.
      • tsotha 11y ago
        Congress has whatever oversight it wants. They can simply defund any agency that irritates them.
    • simoncion 11y ago
      The NSA, the NRO, and the NGA are DoD agencies. The DNI -despite the title- has next-to-nothing to do with running those agencies. To analogize: The US Army answers to the DoD. The DoD answers to the POTUS. This the Army and the DoD are military organizations, despite this fact.
      • tsotha 11y ago
        Yeah, I understand that. I only included the DNI because he did.
• drjesusphd 11y ago
  > The NSA is not a military organization. You're mistaken.