Alan Grayson: Member Of Congress Asked NSA For Their Dossier - Answer Was NO - Not, We Don't Have It

[kpete]

On The Young Turks, Alan Grayson commented that one member of Congress asked the NSA if they would share their dossier on him with him, and their answer was "no". As Grayson put it, "They didn't say they didn't have one."

Cenk and David Sirota talk to Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida about the House vote to continue funding NSA collection of phone records and what motivates politicians to uphold unpopular policies like domestic surveillance. “The division is between people of principle and people who are scared,” Grayson explains. “They’re not so much scared of the political consequences of voting one way or another, they’re scared that there might be some kind of terrorist attack and that they’ll be blamed for it because they weren’t in favor of domestic surveillance.”

VIDEO HERE:
http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/fear-and-money-motivate-congress-to-vote-for-domestic-surveillance

[Scuba]

1. I don't agree that they're afraid of being blamed for an attack. Most of them KNOW ....

... that the NSA - and their outsourcing partners - have dirt on them and are afraid of that being exposed.

[Waiting For Everyman]

2. NSA needs a giant roto-rooter.

And so does the rest of the infinite intel apparatus.

I wish the Congressman had sent a formal FOIA request. As Grayson intimated, if there's an NSA file on a Congressman, then it would be interesting to see how that's justified in light of the requirement that it be connected to a foreign target of surveillance. How many active terrorist targets does the Congressman know, I wonder? I'll bet the NSA does have a file on him, and doesn't have a legit target.

I also wish all the Congresspeople would refuse to vote for any reauthorization until each of them gets all the answers they want.

Whenever I see stonewalling, that reads to me as a big, guilty, red flag. Until NSA comes clean, my assumption is they are guilty of all kinds of gnarly stuff we don't know about yet. (And the stuff we do know about is outrageous enough already.)

[DirkGently]

14. Excellent post. n/t

[blm]

3. Jimmy Carter as President wanted to see files kept on UFOs and was told No by.....

whoever really runs this nation.

[Hydra]

4. I heard that too

Scary when the person we're voting for as Head of the Executive Branch is not the person really in charge.

[blm]

11. Poppy Bush was head of CIA then.

I imagine he made sure there was plenty that Carter would never see.

[Hydra]

12. Including the negotiations to hold the Iran Hostages longer

That he seems to have personally taken care of.

Your point is well taken- if we've seen any part of the real Shadow Gov't, it's the Bushes.

[Chiyo-chichi]

9. The men in black must have used one of those flashy things on Carter, 'coz he doesn't remember that.

"Carter sounded truly stumped by the contention that Bush had told him he lacked proper clearance to review the files. 'I have not heard it before,' he repeatedly told members of the New England Skeptical Society."

At least according to this: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071108/BLOG32/71108036

[stevenleser]

18. It's a bizarre contention. The President hires and fires the CIA Director, etc.

It's mind-boggling to see the conspiracy of the "CIA running things instead of the President" here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Their answer was no? And the Representative didn't say "I will not vote for NSA funding." Why not?

If a Gutless Wonder won't even stick up for their rights, what are the odds that they will stick up for ours?

[millennialmax]

6. SOP for decades.

The term "need to know", when used by government and other organizations (particularly those related to the military or espionage), describes the restriction of data which is considered very sensitive. Under need-to-know restrictions, even if one has all the necessary official approvals (such as a security clearance) to access certain information, one would not be given access to such information, or read into a clandestine operation, unless one has a specific need to know; that is, access to the information must be necessary for the conduct of one's official duties.

As with most security mechanisms, the aim is to make it difficult for unauthorized access to occur, without inconveniencing legitimate access. Need-to-know also aims to discourage "browsing" of sensitive material by limiting access to the smallest possible number of people.

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

[Fumesucker]

8. They already know everything in their dossier

Assuming it's accurate of course, a remarkably silly assumption.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Yeah, if they start making exceptions for elected lawmakers, who's next? Judges?

Defense attorneys and defendants? Presidents?

Please! No self-respecting police state would allow that.

[99th_Monkey]

7. K & R ~ nt

[sabrina 1]

13. And I'm sure they have a dossier on ever member of Congress just in case

they need it.

[dkf]

15. Nice. Alan Grayson is stepping up to the plate people!!!

[liberal_at_heart]

16. Grayson is kicking some serious butt! So are Wyden and Udall.

God it's nice to have at least a few politicians with some courage.

[dkf]

17. Isn't it? I'm so proud of them!!!