It baffles me. Given the history of the NSA and the CIA

[cali]

why wouldn't you be skeptical of what they do and what they say they do?

Doubt it? Two words: Church Committee

They:

are huge organizations with thousands of employees

are Secretive organizations.

have Lots and lots of money and resources

are charged with "serious, life and death missions" (take themselves pretty fucking seriously)

have little oversight

are hermetic worlds

have lots of contractors


This isn't conspiracy theory territory. It's history, common sense and a little knowledge about how institutions and people operate.

[jeff47]

1. We gave that job to Congress.

We gave the job of oversight primarily to Congress in the wake of previous illegal activities.

If only they'd bother to show up to briefings so that they could do that job.

[dsc]

2. those would be the briefings at which they get lied to

or at least told the least untruthful answer.

[jeff47]

5. No, I'm talking about the classified ones

That are apparently too unimportant to delay their weekend.

[dsc]

8. and again

why would you go to this briefing when the man who is giving them, lies to your face, doesn't apologize, and doesn't get fired. Mr. Clapper out and out lied to Senator Wyden. His response, I give the least untruthful answer I could. Obama's response wasn't to fire the man. Why, oh why, would any Senator expect this briefing to be worth their time?

[jeff47]

13. Because it's your fucking job to perform oversight

and pass laws to change the situation when you find that something is wrong.

The utterly moronic dumb-ass argument coming from people upset with the NSA is the claim that the NSA is all-powerful. Which you make here. Again.

The NSA is subservient to Congress. Congress can literally end the NSA tomorrow. Congress can literally end the entire classification system tomorrow. Congress can end any individual program within the NSA they do not like.

If you're pissed that the NSA is doing something wrong, you should be pissed at the people who are supposed to be monitoring them.

And the fact that those congresspeople are claiming the current situation is a surprise when there's been more than 30 briefing tells us their fundraising schedule is more important than their job.

[dsc]

16. how can you oversee what you don't know about

Mr. Clapper is a liar, we know that, we saw him lie on national TV to Senator Wyden, who, in case you didn't know, was trying quite admirably, to oversee him and his NSA. Until Mr. Clapper is replaced, Congress should refuse to be briefed, refuse to appropriate money to the NSA, and refuse to approve any appointment to any agency that has anything at all to do with the NSA. The simple fact is a briefing delivered by a liar is not worth attending.

[nenagh]

17. Thank you dsc,

Agree...

[Sherman A1]

23. I agree that Congress should end NSA funding

until they get the answers to any and all questions which need be asked. That said, to do so they must indeed show up and do their job, so I believe you are both correct.

[Enthusiast]

27. Double thank you. nt

[reusrename]

29. It is that simple.

We have already moved from a manufacturing-based economy to a fraud-based economy, during my lifetime.

Now some folks here are calling for a fraud-based government to round out the picture. It is astounding.

[jeff47]

43. By showing up for the briefings, so you do know about it.

Mr. Clapper is a liar, we know that, we saw him lie on national TV to Senator Wyden

Yes, clearly Mr. Clapper should have released classified information on national TV instead.

If Wyden wanted a complete answer about a classified program, he'd have asked the question in a classified briefing. Instead, he asked the question on national TV. Almost as if he was looking to excite people like you instead of finding out what's actually going on.

[dsc]

46. Mr. Clapper had that question for at least one entire whole day before

appearing before that committee plus he had several days afterward to alter his answer. So what did he do, he kept up the lie.

[secondvariety]

25. "Least untruthful answer."

George Orwell couldn't have coined a more ironic phrase. Thumbs up to Clapper for originality.

[cali]

9. we gave the job of thinking for ourselves to Congress? Maybe YOU did. I sure as

shit did not.

gad. what a sad, sad little post.

[jeff47]

12. No, we gave the job of oversight to congress.

I look forward to your next post were you hurl obscenities at me instead of actually discussing your own topic.

[cali]

19. delude yourself to your heart's content. We didn't give Congress

anything.

and as YOU haven't responded at all to my op by answering the questions I posed, you have no ground whatsoever on which to chide me.

[jeff47]

42. Congress is our representatives.

You are familiar with the concept of a republic, right?

We elected people to Congress to run things for us. Through them, we passed a raft of oversight laws after the Nixon administration. Those laws required Congress to provide oversight to the intelligence agencies.

The fact that they are not doing their job is an enormous problem. Because the public at large is utterly awful at oversight. Just think back to late September 2001 and what the public cheered W for doing.

and as YOU haven't responded at all to my op by answering the questions I posed,

No, I just didn't fawningly agree with you.

I believe we gave the oversight job to Congress after Nixon's abuses and Congress isn't doing it's job. At which point it appears you want to go back to complaining about the NSA instead of talking about the failure of oversight.

[cali]

45. congress has a 10% approval rating.

there's a reason for that.

I believe Congress does NOT have the tools to effectively provide oversight. So does my Senator, Pat Leahy. I think he might just be a tad more of a reliable source than you.

[Catherina]

3. and a multi, multi billion dollar annual budget

Don't quote me but I think it was $53 Billion in 2010. Rec'd

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

4. Their Annual Budget is CLASSIFIED n/t

[jeff47]

7. Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_budget

The budget is classified when you dig down into it. But those budgets are contained within other, public budgets.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

10. yes, their total anual budget is classified (LINK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

[jeff47]

11. And entirely contained within the budget I linked. (nt)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. yeah, sure

good day, sir

[Catherina]

18. They made a change in 2010. The Intel budget was 80 billion USD in 2010

You may need to change your user name to 80 billion my friend I'm tellin ya, they owe you a lot more than 3 billion.

This thing is a monster. Huge sucking monster.

In FY2010, the NIP budget was 53.1 billion USD,[2] and the MIP budget 27 billion USD,[3] amounting to a total of 80 billion USD.[4]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_budget

Overall U.S. intelligence budget tops $80 billion

The government spent a total of $80.1 billion on intelligence gathering last year, three times as much as when it last disclosed the figure 12 years ago.

October 28, 2010|By Ken Dilanian, Tribune Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — The U.S. government on Thursday disclosed for the first time in more than a decade what it spent in total on intelligence gathering in the fiscal year that just ended: $80.1 billion.

That's more than the U.S. spent on the Department of Homeland Security ($53 billion) and the Justice Department ($30 billion), according to figures from the White House Office of Management and Budget. It represents about 12% of the nation's $664-billion defense budget.

...

Intelligence spending has long been classified, but in 2007 the government began revealing part of it — but only the amount not devoted purely to military operations. That figure, known as the National Intelligence Program, was $52.1 billion for fiscal year 2010, which ended Sept. 30, up 6.6% from the previous year.

The government revealed the total intelligence budget twice before, in 1997 and 1998, in response to a lawsuit. It was $26.6 billion and $26.7 billion, respectively, meaning the budget has tripled in 12 years.

James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told senators during his confirmation in July that he persuaded Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to disclose the Military Intelligence Program budget so that the public could see the full picture.

...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/28/nation/la-na-intel-budget-20101029

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

21. Though I don't doubt it is way too high, I would argue that it is potentially even larger than that

but since the number is classified we don't know for sure.

Thanks for the links

[Catherina]

24. I don't doubt it either. We'll never really know

I have a hard time believing those guys stick to a budget lol.

[Catherina]

26. Here's another link "Our Insanely Big $1 Trillion National Security Budget"

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Our Insanely Big 1 Trillion Dollar National Security Budget

I haven't taken the time to absorb it yet so I'm just sharing the link in case it helps

Edited to fix link. Thanks reusrename

[reusrename]

30. Sure you are.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/national-security-budget-1-trillion-congress

[Catherina]

40. Lol! I swear it's embedded in there! it's just not showing

Thanks for helping me out

[Enthusiast]

28. Yeah? Well we need to rein in entitlement spending or we'll never balance the budget.

So there!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[reformist2]

6. Everyone knows you are right. Some people are driven by agendas to deflect.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Far too many people. And even more hesitate to call them on it.

[woo me with science]

15. PROPAGANDA.

It's how authoritarian states roll.

[blkmusclmachine]

22. TRUST US.

We wouldn't lie to you

again.

[HiPointDem]

31. ...because you work there.

[cali]

35. because I work where?

[HiPointDem]

36. "why wouldn't you be skeptical of what they do..." same 'you'. i assumed *you* weren't

talking about *me*. too much to ask that *you* do the same?

[randome]

32. So you don't trust the courts. You don't trust Congress for oversight.

And you clearly don't trust the President.

Is a welcoming militia movement in your future?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

33. I trust the lessons of history. actual, factual history

on some issues, I trust the President. When it comes to the NSA, the CIA and the 14 other National Security Agencies, I think being skeptical is the wisest route. Again, history.

And no, a militia is certainly not in my future. stupid inane ridicule is just that- stupid and inane.

Now why don't you try to actually answer the question in the OP?

[randome]

37. You're right, it was an inane remark and I apologize.

But as jeff47 points out, Congress already has oversight authority. All three branches of government are involved in overseeing the NSA.

Obama established a National Declassification Center.
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2010/1002/1002nch1.cfm

On December 29, President Obama issued a new executive order (EO 13526) that would dramatically change the way the executive branch handles classified material, reduce over-classification and expedite the release of formerly classified materials to the public. Federal agencies would be required to eliminate a 400 million page backlog of materials awaiting declassification by December 31, 2013.

In addition, the President issued a memorandum to heads of departments and agencies that directs additional steps agencies should take to implement the order. The White House also released a Presidential order entitled “Original Classification Authority. This order designates those agency heads and officials as having the authority to classify information as “Top Secret” or “Secret” under the executive order.

Among other major changes, EO 13526 (along with its implementation memorandum) establishes a National Declassification Center at the National Archives to centralize and streamline agency reviews of classified materials. The Archivist of the United States is charged with developing declassification priorities with input from the general public and after taking into account researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification. On December 30, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero announced the immediate establishment of the NDC within NARA.

What more would you like to see happen regarding the NSA? Another layer of oversight? What?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

38. thanks.

yes, there's a need for greater oversight. My Senator certainly thinks so. He's said so for years now. And he may well be one of the most informed members of Congress re oversight of the National Security Agencies.

In the past, oversight by Congress has not proven effective in preventing abuses. Nominal oversight does not necessarily mean effective oversight.

In addition, I think the American people should have greater information as to what Congressional oversight entails as well as being informed on such things as number of those employed by NSA and budgets.

We need an expanded discussion about the national security agencies.

[randome]

39. Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping budgets and employment numbers secret.

It's the Information Age. You can do a hell of a lot with a handful of computers so I don't see that budget or personnel say much.

Maybe Congress could be mandated to do their jobs? Nah, they'd never vote in favor of that.

I guess the NSA could regularly publish results of convictions and apprehensions? Some of that is trickling in now but it may not be enough to allay some people's concerns.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Comrade Grumpy]

44. How's that congressional oversight coming? Boehner to the rescue?

[RobinA]

34. I Think the Key Word

here is "history." I read some of these posts and I have to ask myself, "Have you ever ready any history? At all?" There seems to be NO understanding among the "but they can't read the content" and the "but it's legal" crowd of how these incremental encroachments have almost inevitably worked in the past.

[Puzzledtraveller]

41. Ignorance is bliss and Apathy is paradise

Apathy is the paradise in which the ignorant reside.

[Monkie]

47. dont forget the +/- 400 journalists that were agents or unpaid collaborators

in this spying.
that might explain some of the fauxrage at snowden we see from the media?