Members of Congress Denied Access to Basic Information About NSA

[Hissyspit]

Source: Guardian

Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA

Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance

Glenn Greenwald

theguardian.com, Sunday 4 August 2013 08.26 EDT

Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.

- snip -

But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Mark Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:

- snip -

But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.

Two House members, GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, have provided the Guardian with numerous letters and emails documenting their persistent, and unsuccessful, efforts to learn about NSA programs and relevant FISA court rulings.

"If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job", Rep. Griffith told me. A practicing lawyer before being elected to Congress, he said that his job includes "making decisions about whether these programs should be funded, but also an oath to safeguard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment."

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access

[PSPS]

1. "they are unable to obtain it" yet they repeatedly vote to authorize funding.

[valerief]

10. ^^^^THIS^^^^

[BlueStreak]

16. Do they?

I am not sure that they ever actually see a budget. The Constitution says that the House has to approve all appropriations. I am very interested in knowing how they can uphold their Constitutional duty if they don't even vote on a real budget number.

Does anybody know how this is structured? Is there even a vote on these secret budgets? Or does the main budget appropriation just have a footnote to the effect that "in passing this budget, I give my tacit authorization for a secret expenditure that I know nothing about."

[cantbeserious]

2. Deception, Misdirection And Obfuscation All Around - A House Of Political Mirrors

eom

[another_liberal]

3. The "War on Terror" has become a law unto itself.

We all got so scared (not to mention "kill-crazy&quot after the Twin Towers attack that any attempt to maintain oversight of something like the NSA's spying, or really any "Homeland Defense" project, was seen as anti-American and unpatriotic. It is well past time we reintroduced a measure of sanity and balance to our covert efforts in combating terror. If Congress can't at least know what these spooks are up to, then they are truly above the law which governs the rest of us in this country. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

15. 2,605 Americans died on 9/11

Since then, here are the deaths in car accidents each year:

2002 43,005
2003 42,884
2004 42,836
2005 43,510
2006 42,708
2007 41,259
2008 37,423
2009 33,883
2010 32,885
2011 32,367
2012 25,580 (first 9 mo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

That's at least 418,340 Americans killed on the roads of America by bad drivers and unsafe SUV's and other vehicles, and doesn't even count the deaths so far in 2013.

Driving deaths are about 161 times more likely to kill an American (how many more "terrorist deaths" have there been since 9/11?)

Why not DECLARE WAR ON MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS ? Motor vehicles hate our Freedom to Live.
Is it too "intrusive" of Government to make large SUV bumpers a standard height, so they don't kill people in regular cars during collisions?

[another_liberal]

26. What you say is, sadly, quite true.

And that doesn't even touch on the culpability of State and Federal governments who refuse to come up with the money to pay for long overdue road, street and bridge repairs.

There must be more graft possible from the privatizing of national security, hmmmm?

[JackRiddler]

44. Thank you for using the correct number of "Americans"

In all, almost 3,000 people from many nations died in the September 11th events.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. It is becoming obvious that elected officials do not control the USA

.
.
.

Right from the President on down.

I do not blame the President, Congressmen, Senators and so on for not being able to effect improvements.

They are all under enormous pressure, both financially and with threat of physical harm.

Hoover ran the country for quite a while, then the Bushes who fomented financial control of the USA.

Hoover is gone, NSA is here now

Suggestion to Congress - can't get access?

Don't fund the NSA.

period.

CC

[Lugal Zaggesi]

17. JFK tried to rein in the CIA and other spooks

They blew his brains out - quite literally.

Presidents after that have been much more nervous about trying to control the National Security State.

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. Exactly

.
.
.

'nuff said

CC

[on point]

5. Then vote no continually until you get it and a yes is deserved, or noy

[sheshe2]

6. Well...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013
What you'll be reading about NSA surveillance tomorrow (updated)

Snip:

Secondly, the release of the 2 white papers on the metadata collection program is likely aimed at quelling the "Oh my, we didn't know!" coming from so many members of Congress lately. This article goes on to point out that the papers were given to the Intelligence Committees in both the House and Senate - who were then asked to provide them to all members of Congress in a classified setting. The message is that if they didn't know, they chose not to.

Snip:

The overall fact - as even Greenwald has to admit - is that in order to review this kind of information about US persons, they need a warrant.

Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.

Snip:

On the point about intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets, what Greenwald fails to mention is the process of "minimization" employed by NSA in which analysts immediately remove that material.

Now, anyone who discusses this process without also mentioning minimization procedures is also either very uninformed or intentionally hyping the story. Minimization is a term of art in the world of NSA intercepts which essentially means “stay out of American citizen’s business.” If information about specific Americans (or even foreigners inside the United States) is captured, those details must be removed from all records and cannot be shared with any other entity in the government unless it is necessary to understand and interpret related foreign intelligence or to protect lives from criminal threats.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-youll-be-reading-about-nsa.html

11:10 AM, JUNE 14 2013
PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”
by Kurt Eichenwald

As for the purported secrecy of this program—folks haven’t been listening. Section 702 was widely debated and parsed through by the Congress before its adoption in 2008 (under the Bush administration). It was widely debated and parsed through by Congress before its re-authorization in December 2012 (under the Obama administration). Any supposed expert who feigns surprise here is, once again, either uninformed or hyping.


SNIP:

Some explanation up front: I spent seven years investigating the national-security systems and policies established in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for my book 500 Days. I learned a fair amount about the data-mining programs of the N.S.A. and wrote about it.I summarized those findings in my last post. However, now it has become obvious to me that I need to go further than I did in my book, at least in hopes of calming things down. When discussing errors, I’m going to mention “reports” regarding news articles, but I’m not going to identify them—the last thing I want is for this to become a back-and-forth between reporters.

First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

[PSPS]

20. All that cut and paste for nothing

While the claim by congress that it had no idea this was happening may be false, the rest is just standard apologist boilerplate #1 and #10*.

..in order to review this kind of information about US persons, they need a warrant.

First, needing a warrant isn't the same as getting one. And these "secret" warrants, which nobody can claim to know anything about including Eichenwald, come "secretly" flying out of the "secret" FISA court like a broken candy machine.

Second, why is there information to review in the first place? There would be no information to review if it weren't being collected on a wholesale basis to begin with, and this is done without any warrants (or a pretend "secret" warrant from a "secret" court based on "secret" laws with "secret" interpretations. In other words, completely without any real legality.) This was reluctantly admitted by the NSA in its televised testimony about "going back to review" what they had already collected (or "take it off the shelf.&quot


* Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[JackRiddler]

39. Exactly.

The apologia for the NSA's total surveillance programs include the absurd idea that collected information doesn't count as having been collected somehow until a later review (with the secret blanket-search "warrant" as opposed to an actual warrant).

So they collect and store EVERYTHING and then claim this wasn't a search. And sooner or later, they will be looking into collected information with a "warrant" for every possible reason and learning shit they're not supposed to know. One "terrorist" search might qualify them to look into millions of people.

And then the motherfuckers want to make excuses that it's okay because in the flood of legislation some part of it was openly read on the House floor five or ten years ago, what weren't you watching C-SPAN that hour?

Meanwhile, EIGHTY BILLION out of the federal budget is SECRET. An unaccountable, deep state empire.

FUCK THIS.

[JackRiddler]

40. Another thing apologist Eichenwald is doing...

is that he's effectively admitting that he has NOT been meeting his own duty to report adequately on these programs, which he claims he knew all about and found pedestrian. For all these years. So now (as with other members of the courtier-press) he's pissed off that Snowden and Greenwald are making a story that he didn't bother to make himself.

Fuck him!

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Info denied to Grayson by a committee 'voice vote' that the ranking member didn't know about

and the transcript of the meeting is classified. So he has no idea why they denied it all (there was more than one request).,

And when he had his staff send several of the Snowden slides The Guardian had published, he was told the slides were still classified, despite being in the world's media, and he had to stop.

Kakfa, your hour is come.

[nashville_brook]

13. grayson won't take the Kafka treatment as business as usual

i love my congressman.

[Life Long Dem]

8. So they have been voting to fund this on basic information

But now they are saying they don't have the basic information to vote on this.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Cue the Greenwald attackers.

In the meantime, know this:

Congressman Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee on June 19th requesting several documents. More than four weeks later, the GPO Chairman of the Committee told Grayson by letter that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".

"Congressman Grayson had "discussed the committee's decision with Ranking Member (Dutch) Ruppersberger on the floor last night, and he told the Congressman that he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." Grayson wanted to know how a voice vote denying him access to these documents could have taken place without the knowledge of the ranking member on the Committee, and asked: "can you please share with us the recorded vote, Member-by-Member?" The reply from this Committee was as follows:

"Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."

[Lugal Zaggesi]

12. In a so-called Democracy

that is complete and utter bullshit.

Snowden was right to sound the Alarm.

[PSPS]

21. "there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance"

[Lugal Zaggesi]

11. The same thing happened when Congress "approved" the so-called "Bill to go to War with Iraq" in 2002

It is a MYTH that "everyone saw the same intelligence":

American Cons still pretend that "everyone agreed" Saddam was working on and had WMD's - because the White House presented the sexed-up intelligence to Congress, except for the 8 people in the House and Senate chairing the key committees (who saw more of the raw intelligence). Of those 8, the 4 Democrats voted AGAINST giving Bush the permission to build up the troops to "pressure Saddam to carry out UN Resolutions", as the vote in Congress was marketed.

See Senator Bob Graham of Florida's (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - one of those 4 Democrats that saw the Intelligence) memoirs - he urged his colleagues to vote against the Oct 11 2002 Resolution, but "national security" laws prevented him from telling what he learned from his privileged intelligence briefings. Many Senators and Representatives didn't want to believe a US President would lie to them on taking the country to war.

Sunday, November 20, 2005
In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
-- Senator Bob Graham

Bush and Cheney beefed up the "Unitary Presidency", and Obama is saying "thank you very much" as he uses it. Congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant - they haven't "Declared War" since WWII - the Presidents decide who we invade these days, and who we spy on. Congress is a clueless rubber-stamp in National Security matters.

[soryang]

24. Bob Graham could have told other members of Congress

...the nature of the contents of the classified version, he could have given them a copy of the classified version of the NIE but he chose not to. Thus he had it both ways.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

25. and he would have gone to prison

for breaking National Security laws that forbade him from leaking such information to members of Congress that didn't have the "need to know", because they were not Committee Chairmen or ranking members.

Which part of this is confusing to you ?

[soryang]

31. Read the Supreme Court decision in Gravel v US

You are the one who is confused.

[24601]

45. No member can be sent to prison for what they say on the floor of the House or Senate.

Reference Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

"...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

On the floor, Graham could have said whatever he wanted with immunity from prosecution.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

46. Yes, I realized that was probably true, later

When Bob Graham said he "couldn't" tell his colleagues what he had learned as Chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also as co-Chairman of The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001) because of all the trouble he would get in for revealing classified information, I think, now, he meant it would end his career with extreme prejudice - not result in prison time. I wish someone like Paul Wellstone had been in a position to test the Law - but he never was.

I amended my comment down-thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=556978

I don't think ANYBODY has broken the "classification rules" in sharing "top secret" information they have learned as Chairmen or Ranking Members on key Committees to their colleagues to influence their voting - it would pretty much get them kicked off their Committee, get investigated for "ethics" violations, enrage their Party, and possibly ruin any businesses they owned. Could they be re-elected without party help ? Lieberman was - but it wasn't for exposing classified information that he lost the backing of his Party.

But it probably wouldn't get them tossed in prison like Bradley Manning.

Would classified information on the Iraq "sexed up intelligence" and other things, verbally revealed to colleagues (the documents were carefully controlled), have affected the vote of ambitious Democratic Senators (meaning, eyeing a run for the Presidency) like Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards? Probably not - even if THEY were convinced that the "WMD" evidence was bogus, they could read the political winds in October 2002, and knew what their constituents *thought* about Iraq. And heck, they thought if the "War" was quick and successful and few/none American casualties, they would look "weak" if they voted against it.

[JackRiddler]

41. I don't buy these excuses because I READ.

Hans Blix, Mohamed El-Baradei, Scott Ritter...

these people were in a position to know, unlike the self-evident anonymous and "Curveball" bullshit coming from Blair, Judy Miller, the CIA and the admin.

They were the actual inspectors and they left no doubt that there were no Iraqi WMD programs. They spoke very publicly prior to the US war of aggression.

The world press was full of stories thoroughly debunking the Bush regime's lies prior to the capitulation of half of the Democrats to the aggressive war resolution.

To know what the real story was all you required was a high-school level ability to read critically and to see through bullshit.

And of course it would have equally been an unprovoked, one-sided war of aggression even if Iraq had WMD programs.

There is absolutely no excuse for those who voted for the Bush regime's resolution to commit aggressive war on Iraq.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

43. Republicans are mainly ignorant nutjobs. But here's the 29 Democratic Senators dumb enough to vote

for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (which was only going to be used to pressure Iraq to accept the UN resolutions, wink, wink, we won't really go to War ):

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
California: Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Iowa: Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Massachusetts: Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Missouri: Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Jersey: Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Recognize any names there, Democratic Senators wanting to appear "strong" to American voters, just in case they run for President some day ?
Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards

And a lot in ignorant Red states - don't look to Senators and House Representatives to get out ahead of their ignorant constituents.

Only 21 Democratic Senators were smart enough to see past the rush-job cheerleading marketing brochure known as the "National Intelligence Estimate" that came out a few days before this vote:

21 (42%) of Democratic Senators voted against: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).

The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Where are the Greenwald attackers? Are they off on Sundays?

[PSPS]

22. I think last Sunday was #5 Sunday.

[SoapBox]

19. Do tell Mr. Beck!

...oops...Greenwald.

Now what did you say?

BOO!

...oh.

[soryang]

23. The disingenuous excuse for lack of oversight

Anything that is disclosed to an oversight committee may be revealed by a representative or senator. The means chosen to do this should be considered carefully in accordance with Gravel v. United States.

Elected representatives never hesitate to use speech and debate clause immunity to shield themselves from corruption investigations from the FBI, but claim helplessness when it comes to protecting the public from an out of control national security sector. The baseless contention that a representative or senator on a committee is unable to inform another congressional representative who is making an inquiry for pertinent information is just another proof that the executive branch with corrupt legislative capitulation in both parties has usurped the constitutional powers of elected representatives

[Lugal Zaggesi]

27. Few members of Congress have the cajones of Bradley Manning

who might be sentenced to over a century in prison for disclosing information that was "classified". Members of Congress have their careers to think about - they can't risk prison.

Have you ever had access to highly classified information?
You might think you are following the letter of the law in handling it, but the guys "controlling" classified information have lots of guns and little imagination. They are paid to err on the side of caution.

Ask Thomas Drake about how the Government overreacts to anything connected to "classified information":
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/10-0

[questionseverything]

29. so the slides are printed and reprinted

In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.

////////////////////////////

all over the world and yet a sitting us congressman can not bring them to the house for discussion?

[soryang]

30. Have you ever had access to classified information?

er, none of your business. I quote law...and you talk...? Manning and Drake aren't elected representatives with Constitutional powers.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

32. Yes, I have

Sounds like you never have - of course, that's your "business". Pretend the "national security" folks aren't as serious as a heart attack.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/bradley-manning-trial-seal-team-6

It has since become fashion for politicians who supported the war to blame the Iraq debacle on "bad intelligence." But as former CIA analyst Paul Pillar reminds us, the carefully cherry-picked "Intel" about Saddam Hussein's WMD program was really never the issue. After all, the CIA's classified intelligence estimate on Iraq argued that, even if that country's ruler Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction (which he didn't), he would never use them and was therefore not a threat.

Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003, was one of the few people with access to that CIA report who bothered to take the time to read it. Initially keen on the idea of invading Iraq, he changed his mind and voted against the invasion.

What if the entire nation had had access to that highly classified document? What if bloggers, veterans' groups, clergy, journalists, educators, and other opinion leaders had been able to see the full intelligence estimate, not just the morsels cherry-picked by Cheney and his mates? Even then, of course, there was enough information around to convince millions of people across the globe of the folly of such an invasion, but what if some insider had really laid out the whole truth, not just the cherry-picked pseudofacts in those months and the games being played by other insiders to fool Congress and the American people into a war of choice and design in the Middle East? As we now know, whatever potentially helpful information there was remained conveniently beyond our sight until a military and humanitarian disaster was unleashed.

Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003, was NOT allowed to share what he learned reading highly classified reports he had access to as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. You can pretend otherwise based on your reading of some "law" - that's your business.

But don't expect Congressmen to believe you.

[soryang]

33. Who cares you don't know the law on this subject

...or history. From the opinion:

"...Senator Gravel disavows any assertion of general immunity from the criminal law. But he points out that the last portion of § 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that, while one part of § 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. [p616] "

[Lugal Zaggesi]

34. Then again

you might be right - Senator Bob Graham could have spilled the classified information in the actual chambers of the Senate to his colleagues (but he didn't have the actual documents, since they were physically locked away in special rooms) to try to affect the vote. If the Bush Administration didn't go after him for treason, felony, or breach of peace (which they probably would have tried), he might have avoided prison, and merely ended his career, become a persona non grata among colleagues, and probably got kicked off the Board of Graham Companies after the media storm that would have been raised in the post 9/11 Era.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/06/senate_intelligence_hints_at_prism_can_members_of_congress_be_tried_for.html

So, if he had the cajones of Bradley Manning or Ed Snowden,
it was probably doable. The avoiding prison part. You're probably right.

He just had to toss his life out the window - hard for multi-millionaires in their 60's (he was 66 in 2002), but certainly possible.

[William deB. Mills]

28. Congressional Whistleblowers?!?

Are you telling me that Congressmen are now blowing whistles?

This cannot happen. One of the most precious and darkest secrets of our great...ah...democracy is that Congress is clueless. Congressmen almost always vote for whatever the Imperial Presidency desires, because it is the Imperial Presidency that has the power (well, so long as Wall St. does not get hot about the issue). Congressmen obviously must convince voters they know what they are doing and the Imperial Presidency must convince Congressmen that they are part of the team. Delusion on this point is central to keeping the game going.

The instant Congressmen face up to how they are being played by the military-intelligence-Imperial Presidency gang that wants to rule the world then democracy will start to break out randomly. The amount of national security and foreign policy nonsense that will start to be questioned within the Government is beyond calculating. Think of the convenient assumptions that are treated as inherent truths in Washington in order to maintain the aggressive foreign policy pushed by the Imperial Presidency: that Islamic activism is always hostile, that US national security must be subordinated to the policy demands of right-wing Israelis, that Iran is a dire threat to world peace, that American democracy is a convenience that may be enjoyed so long and only so long as it does not interfere with making the rules that control the world and enrich the rich.

Just ask yourselves what would happen if Congressmen stopped clicking their heels and accepting every trite and superficial remark made by any military, intel, or White House figure starting with "it is essential for national security that..."

[olddad56]

35. Do we really need any more proof that the shadow government runs this country?

[ronnie624]

36. Any politically aware American

who is not outraged by this blatant flouting of our presumed democratic institutions, will end up getting exactly what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us will be dragged into the abyss of despotism along with them. Such people merit nothing but contempt for their peculiar brand of apathy.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Transparency!

[Enthusiast]

38. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Sunlei]

42. within 10 days of 9-11 Congress created a monster. bunch of knee-jerkers.

act in foolish-fearful haste, repent in leisure.