How many in Congress were aware of NSA collecting phone records?

[Missourian]

Congress gave the president these powers - so they are Constitutional.

I never said they weren't.

What I said was President Obama is responsible for the policies and actions of the NSA during his administration.

 

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON -- A massive email surveillance program run by the National Security Agency is not directed at Americans and is legally permissible and highly useful for anti-terror operation, a senior administration official said in a statement Thursday night.

UPDATE: 10:25 p.m. -- James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, has released his first on-the-record statement about the PRISM program, calling the disclosure of it “reprehensible” and insisting that Americans aren’t targeted. The full statement is below.

The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.​

More: Obama Administration On PRISM Program: 'Only Non-U.S. Persons Outside The U.S. Are Targeted' (UPDATE) - By Sam Stein

 

[flacaltenn]

Congress gave the president these powers - so they are Constitutional.

I'm pretty fair generally. But YOU are truely a horse's ass. You're statement is incorrect. It displays a COMPLETE ignorance of what is Constitutional and how we determine that. But to BOOT -- your childish SUPPORT of this hideous abuse of your Civil Rights tells me you have that overriding lefty trait of having no sense of self-preservation.

The blame is CLEARLY unaminous in DC except for 4 or 5 politicians like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They represent the PRINCIPLED wings of both parties that were protecting your sorry ass from this kind of abuse.

YET YOU --- are on a mission to deflect the blame and NOT EVEN CARE about fixing the problem.. So you and Franco are the only 2 party animals I can see out that are missing outrage about the problem.

I'd go grab Bushy and ask him to FIX THIS, but he is watching SpongeBob and eating pretzels right now. So YOUR Dear Leader is expected by ALL OF US to fix this. But instead, he's adamant about supporting policies that HE STRONGLY OPPOSED ---- when he had any principles. You two are siamese twins.. And both of you are useless.

BTW -- Your infinite ignorance is showing also.. PRISM is NOT what we are complaining about. You don't even understand the NUMBER of outrages that we have had to endure in the past week..

 

[The Rabbi]

You understand that senators and reps were briefed on this but could not make it public because that would be a breach of security, right?

 

[bendog]

i liked Angus King's comment, "this is sort of like in Casablanca when Claude Rains says 'I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!'"

 

[Lakhota]

Obama: PRISM Doesn't Apply To U.S. Citizens | TPM LiveWire

 

[flacaltenn]

TalkingPointsMemo?? That's your brain?

PRISM IS being applied to US citizens. There is no way to really avoid that. Pretty much been admitted DESPITE how the enabling legislation was written.

You should know better. But then again -- your brain is talkingpointsmemo...

 

[Lakhota]

Internet Shrugs Off NSA Data Mining: People 'Numb To The Fact That They're Being Watched'

 

[dilloduck]

Senator Obama outraged over Bush spying on Americans...

[youtube]B6fnfVJzZT4[/youtube]


Unfortunately, he had no idea this was going on...he just heard about it on the news.

Hell ya

 

[konradv]

Hasn't the NSA been doing this ever since they were founded? They don't call it "No Such Agency" for nothing, highly secretive and their activities long pre-date Obama and Bush.

 

[dilloduck]

Hasn't the NSA been doing this ever since they were founded? They don't call it "No Such Agency" for nothing, highly secretive and their activities long pre-date Obama and Bush.

Ya ya that's the ticket. It's OK cuz they've always been doing it.

 

[Lakhota]

NSA Internet Spying Program Helped Foil Potential Attack On New York Subway

 

[nitroz]

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Thursday laid public concern over the National Security Agency's collection of phone records from millions of Verizon customers at the feet of President Barack Obama, declining to explain to reporters why such a program, approved by Congress years ago, is necessary.

"I trust the president will explain to the American people why the administration considers this a critical tool in protecting our nation from threat of terrorist attack," Boehner said at a weekly press briefing.

"Why isn't the burden also on you to explain why this act was passed?" a reporter pressed.

The Ohio Republican also would not say whether he was briefed or aware of the program.

“This is nothing particularly new," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). "This has been going on for seven years under the auspices of the FISA authority, and every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this.”

“It’s called protecting America," added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

More: Boehner Declines To Explain Why NSA Phone Tracking Is Necessary | TPM LiveWire, By IGOR BOBIC

So, it appears that Boehner's "concern" is phony - considering he likely knew about it. Also, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) made it clear that the entire Senate knew about it.

There was a bi-partisan act in congress to pass the patroit act, and they all support the NSA.

 

[Londoner]

Phony outrage like all the phony outrage from the left when the program was started under Bush destroying the constitution, invasion of privacy, illegal eavesdropping stuff like that yet now that we find it was continued by Obama it's all good. Why is that are they only checking up on conservatives?

I remember when the Left tried to speak out against the way Bush used the threat of terrorism to radically expand the concentrated surveillance powers of the Federal Government. Rightwing voters just assumed, as they always do when their party is in power, that increasing the power and budget of federal bureaucrats was the best solution. Alternatively, John Kerry wanted to handle terrorism like a police matter along with returning more power to the states and local communities, like the Boston cops who thwarted the marathon bombers (much to the chagrin of the Republicans who wanted so badly for this to be more of a Washington/InternationalTerrorism issue. The republicans will do anything to make something a federal matter. They hate it when states and local communities solve something; that's why they need the Big Government War on Terror).

Kerry wanted to treat Al Qeada as criminal group. Indeed, he didn't want to give them endless press and make them seem infinitely powerful as Bush did (which only served to increased their recruiting and political power in the Arab world). Nope, Kerry wanted to treat Terrorism like the Israeli's do - he wanted to quietly hunt them down and ******* slaughter them - not invade whole countries that had nothing to do with the attacks. [Do you get it now? This is why you don't give Washington so much power - because they use that power in harmful ways] Bush wanted to turn 15 guys with box cutters into a grand War for Civilization with a reach across continents, cultures and religions - he wanted to rebuild the Arab world as a Democracy; he wanted to improve the world and save the world top-down from Washington DC - in other worlds he wanted a context to spend a ton of money and grow the power of Washington. [This, from the party that claims not to trust Washington to run a laundromat. Funny how the GOP always seem to give Washington more power and more money, and they always have so much faith that pumping money and power into Washington will solve problems] Only with such a grand Washington centered vision could your party concentrate more power and money in the hands of Washington (which is something Republicans love to do if you look at the spending record of Reagan/Bush).

But to your point good man. Every time anyone on the Left said anything about Bush's Big Government Surveillance State, Chaney and the entire Republican media apparatus accused the Left of endangering the troops and being soft on terrorism. If Obama acted out against the Patriot Act, Talk Radio and FOX News would call him a Muslim sympathizer who was weak on national defense.

It was brilliant how your party used the threat of terrorism. They had FOX News flash constant terror alerts so they could exploit our fears and bully anyone who tried to criticize their ruthless expansion government power..

My friend Blackhawk, please follow this link. The reason I ask you to learn about this is because it is so clear you've been lied to. We can no longer afford how much your party has grown government. Respectfully sir.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

 

[blackhawk]

Phony outrage like all the phony outrage from the left when the program was started under Bush destroying the constitution, invasion of privacy, illegal eavesdropping stuff like that yet now that we find it was continued by Obama it's all good. Why is that are they only checking up on conservatives?

I remember when the Left tried to speak out against the way Bush used the threat of terrorism to radically expand the concentrated surveillance powers of the Federal Government. Rightwing voters just assumed, as they always do when their party is in power, that increasing the power and budget of federal bureaucrats was the best solution. Alternatively, John Kerry wanted to handle terrorism like a police matter along with returning more power to the states and local communities, like the Boston cops who thwarted the marathon bombers (much to the chagrin of the Republicans who wanted so badly for this to be more of a Washington/InternationalTerrorism issue. The republicans will do anything to make something a federal matter. They hate it when states and local communities solve something; that's why they need the Big Government War on Terror).

Kerry wanted to treat Al Qeada as criminal group. Indeed, rather than giving them so much press and making them seem so powerful as Bush did (which increased their recruiting power and political power in the arab world), Kerry wanted to treat Terrorism like the Israeli's do - he wanted to quietly hunt them down and slaughter them, BUT Bush wanted to turn it into a grand War for Civilization with a reach across continents, cultures and religions. Only then could he concentrate more power and money in the hands of Washington (which is something Republicans love to do if you look at the spending record of Reagan/Bush).

But to your point good man. Every time anyone on the Left said anything about Bush's Big Government Surveillance State, Chaney and the entire Republican media apparatus accused the Left of endangering the troops and being soft on terrorism.

It was brilliant. They had FOX News flash constant terror alerts so they could exploit our fears and bully anyone who tried to criticize their ruthless expansion government power..

My friend Blackhawk, please follow this link. The reason I ask you to learn about this is because it is so clear you've been lied to. We can no longer afford how much your party has grown government. Respectfully sir.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

Wow such a long winded and self righteous speech that you have tried to pass of as informed thinking but in reality is nothing more than the standard liberal talking points none of which changes the fact that Obama continued many of the anti terror policies that started with Bush which the left vilified but yet have quietly accepted under Obama respectfully you need to start thinking beyond the party line.

 

[Londoner]

Wow such a long winded and self righteous speech that you have tried to pass of as informed thinking but in reality is nothing more than the standard liberal talking points none of which changes the fact that Obama continued many of the anti terror policies that started with Bush which the left vilified but yet have quietly accepted under Obama respectfully you need to start thinking beyond the party line.

You believed Obama - the liberal - when he said he didn't want to concentrate power in Washington?

You believed the most liberal member of the senate when he said he didn't trust Big Government with expanded powers of surveillance?

Smarten up good man. The Democrats have always trusted big government with more power and more money. They've always trusted Big Government to do Big Things, like save the world from Washington.

Believing Obama in this instance would be like believing a pro-medicare campaign speech in Florida by a Republican nominee for president. It's a game.

But, back to the point. The Republican Brand is that they don't trust government to run a laundromat, yet they gave Washington the power and money to rebuild whole Arab nations in our democratic image. It's a hoax, and it only works with dumb voters. The war on terrorism puts more money and power in Washington than anything ever dreamed by LBJ. And if the Dems lose in 2016, the War on Terrorism is coming back on steroids, with color coded terror alerts on every channel. It's an industry for the Republicans - it triangulates their interests across domestic polices, electoral needs, defense contracts and energy. Obama is trying to keep the whole mess going, but he ain't got nothing on the party that invented the terrorism industry.

Homeland Security is the biggest, most secretive, most wasteful bureaucracy ever created.

Read up on it good man.
A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

We know the Dems like Big Government, but FOX News has convinced a generation of Republican voters that the GOP doesn't like to concentrate power and money in Washington. Truth is, if you look at the record of Reagan and Bush, it's pretty clear that the rightwing voter has been lied to. Everyone outside of the GOP message bubble knows that the Republican party grows government like nobody else. C'mon man, this is not controversial or even that interesting. It's high school stuff.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hasn't the NSA been doing this ever since they were founded? They don't call it "No Such Agency" for nothing, highly secretive and their activities long pre-date Obama and Bush.

Its mission was always technical systems and support for strategic INTERNATIONAL surveillance. They are one of very few bastions of extreme competence and accomplishment in DC (IMHO). They had ALWAYS been EXPRESSLY prohibited from participating in ANY DOMESTIC operations or collection of data. In fact, in the 9-11 commission report you'll find them mentioned as part of the "WALL" problem. Where information could NOT be shared between agencies directly and had to go thru executive channels to be shared at all. You can also read about Echelon where we had reciprocal arrangements with the Brits and other to spy on each other citizens BECAUSE of this prohibition.

You do not want these guys with access to domestic data. THEY probably don't want to be chartered to refine and process domestic data. (That why so many inside whistle-blowers and press leaks and tattle-tale books from retirees.)

But since they invent such nifty keen surveillance tools, after 9-11 they took on a much larger surveillance role because the FBI was still using teletypes and rolodexes. And that morphed to them having access to communications that linked the US with terrorist hot-spots. Which morphed to having access to domestic records, but only if it had terrorist content, which morphed to giving them it all --- so that they could train their systems to separate innocent from suspicious behaviour..

Needed to stop that train about 6 to 8 years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Congrats Londoner.. I think you made it thru 2 entire posts without blaming Reagan for anything..

You are however wrong about the CLinton/Kerry wanting to treat terrorists as a legal matter. They didn't want to "hunt them down and kill them".. They wanted to build a case, issue a warrant, provide them with a lawyer and then put them in American jails where they become "cause celebs" for the current crop of Moslem extremists. In fact Clinton worried that we didn't have enough evidence on Bin Laden to pick him up in Sudan when they offered to cooperate in his arrest. So he didn't..

Problem with that approach is --- the evidence chain is FULL of secret methods and informers and foreign intel agencies that will never be dragged into a public American court..

Now with the drone program, we just fire and THEN try to figure out who and why we killed them. No court required. Just a list.

We don't deserve the keys to a nuclear arsenal.. We're too stone stupid...

 

[jon_berzerk]

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Thursday laid public concern over the National Security Agency's collection of phone records from millions of Verizon customers at the feet of President Barack Obama, declining to explain to reporters why such a program, approved by Congress years ago, is necessary.

"I trust the president will explain to the American people why the administration considers this a critical tool in protecting our nation from threat of terrorist attack," Boehner said at a weekly press briefing.

"Why isn't the burden also on you to explain why this act was passed?" a reporter pressed.

The Ohio Republican also would not say whether he was briefed or aware of the program.

“This is nothing particularly new," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). "This has been going on for seven years under the auspices of the FISA authority, and every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this.”

“It’s called protecting America," added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

More: Boehner Declines To Explain Why NSA Phone Tracking Is Necessary | TPM LiveWire, By IGOR BOBIC

So, it appears that Boehner's "concern" is phony - considering he likely knew about it. Also, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) made it clear that the entire Senate knew about it.

i was surprised to learn that the prezbo

was less then honest with this statement today

“every member of Congress has been briefed on this program.”--obama

On Friday morning, President Barack Obama defended his administration’s massive telephone records surveillance programs by explaining that “every member of Congress has been briefed on this program.”

There’s only one problem: both Republican and Democrat Congresspeople say that isn’t true. On Friday afternoon, the press office for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), one of the authors of the Patriot Act, tweeted, “Obama’s claim that ‘every Member of Congress’ was briefed is FALSE.”

It wasn’t just Sensenbrenner. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said that only certain members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been told about the program, and he only knew about it because he received “special permission” to be briefed after hearing about it through the grapevine. “I knew about the program,” he said on MSNBC, “because I specifically sought it out. It’s not something that’s briefed outside the Intelligence Committee.” Merkley added that the administration had ignored the law. “Clearly the administration has not followed what an ordinary person would consider to be the standard of the law here,” he said.

Merkely summed up: “when the president says all members of Congress were briefed … well, I think a very small number of Senators in Congress had full details on these programs.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he only knew about the program after asking for a briefing under “classified circumstances.” The “average member,” he said, had no access to this information. “They don’t receive this kind of briefing.”

Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said they had not been briefed on the phone surveillance program, either. “Not quite!” Rep. Billy Long (R-LA) tweeted after hearing about Obama’s claim.

'FALSE': Congress Denies Obama Claim 'Every Member' Briefed on Surveillance

 

[Glensather]

Hasn't the NSA been doing this ever since they were founded? They don't call it "No Such Agency" for nothing, highly secretive and their activities long pre-date Obama and Bush.

While it is probably true that we've been under surveillance by our own Government for a long time... that still doesn't make it right. Once the FBI and CIA had free reign to investigate wherever they wanted, whenever, that was the beginning of the end of our freedoms.

That the NSA is now doing so as well doesn't come as a shock; I mean, DHS does it in the open.

But it's still wrong.