Senator Lindsey Graham Doesn't Know Details Of NSA Abuse, But Sure It's Fine Because 'WE'RE AT WAR!'

[KoKo]

by Mike Masnick

So, over the weekend, the Washington Post reported on the latest bombshell from the Snowden files, showing both that the NSA is really bad at "minimizing" information on Americans that it's not supposed to hang onto and (more importantly) that, contrary to earlier claims, Snowden did in fact have access to the FISA collection database of info (suggesting that the NSA's controls over misuse of that data are not nearly as good as the agency and its defenders have claimed). Over at the Daily Beast, they figured that the various Senators in charge of oversight of the NSA would have some comments on the piece and how it shows an out of control NSA. But, that's not quite what happened. Senator after Senator insisted that they either hadn't yet read the story or were still trying to understand the details. The most ridiculous of all was kneejerk defender of the NSA, Lindsey Graham, who insisted that whatever was in the report didn't matter because we're at war:

Sen. Lindsey Graham—who sits on the Senate’s armed services, appropriations, and judiciary committees and is one of the Republican Party’s most prominent voices on defense and intelligence issues—wasn’t familiar with the Post piece.

“I don’t really know the details about what they’re saying in the paper. I know [NSA intelligence-gathering] is necessary. We’re at war with radical Islam,” Graham said.

Of course, that's interesting on two accounts. First, technically, we're not at war, because Congress hasn't declared war. You'd think a Senator would know that. Second, even if we were at war, does Graham honestly believe that there can be no limitations on NSA surveillance and nothing can go too far, so long as he can insist that "we're at war" (even if we're not)? If so, that's rather scary.

https://www.techdirt.com/

[Chucky-Doll]

1. What "abuse?"

In case you haven't noticed, Edward Snowden has never revealed any real evidence of any widespread abuse by the NSA. All he did was expose how their surveillance programs work, and what they are capable of doing. He still has not shown us ways in which these programs have been abused. Yesterday, the Washington Post tried to stir-up outrage over their latest NSA "scoop," which was basically a flop. In the fifth, or sixth paragraph of the Washington Post article, it says the NSA uncovered a secret nuclear program, double-dealing by allies, and information that led to the arrest of some people linked to terrorism. This is why there is a NSA. The Washington Post basically, though grudgingly, admitted that the NSA works.

Last year, Edward Snowden leaked the NSA's compliance reports, and it said the NSA makes very few mistakes, and is within the law 99% of the time. On the rare occasions the NSA violated the law, most of the time it was because of human error, or a computer glitch. This is according to documents, leaked by EDWARD SNOWDEN. But, because the NSA wasn't in compliance with the law 100% of the time, and the fact that the NSA dares to exist at all, paranoid libertarians see this as "abuse." Libertarians like to create their own reality, and their own rules.

[frylock]

2. yunh-huh yunh-huh

[Orsino]

3. War is a racket, and Graham is a racketeer.

War conceals all sorts of atrocities and thefts, which is why Graham and his ilk always lobby for more war.