Regardless of whether spying on US citizens is good from the standpoint of security or civil liberties, it is a problem when two elected Senators don't know the extent of what they're voting on. This would turn the power of the government from elected officials to appointed ones. Imagine if the US Army wouldn't divulge the capabilities of a new fighter jet to the very people who were authorizing the money for its construction. The civilian-military hierarchy has long been recognized as a cornerstone of American government. I find it hard to accept an NSA (preceded by the DoD) that has the ability to say no to two Senators, and answers only to the President.
This makes me wonder if the Wired article got a little jumpy when it wrote "the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up." Perhaps they've been told, but are not allowed to disclose the number publicly?
Even if the latter is the case, it is disconcerting that elected officials cannot convey basic information about the laws they vote for to their constituents.
> Imagine if the US Army wouldn't divulge the capabilities of a new fighter jet to the very people who were authorizing the money for its construction.
No need to imagine. This happens. Covert areas of defense spending have always been conducted in the dark, often with blank checks.
The military, NSA, CIA, etc. are in the game of accumulating hidden capabilities. This is the job the American people have given them, and yes, it is a constant arbitrage at odds with, among other things, their own privacy and fiscal responsibilities.
There is a difference in doing things overtly and covertly. If they are doing it covertly they will probably think it through a lot more carefully, since the stakes are higher. And if some things that were previously done covertly but are now done overtly, it doesn't sound so far fetched that other things that were earlier not done at all are now done in secret.
> And if some things that [were] previously done covertly but [are] now done overtly, it doesn't sound so far fetched that other things that were earlier not done at all are now done in secret.
It makes me angry, too. And I'd say the ball is in the legislature's court. They can issue ultimatums, can't they? "'Fess up, or we're cutting your funding."
The system is highly inter-connected when it comes to protecting power. A threat to the NSA is a threat to the CIA and to Homeland Security and the general super state we have. You can't tear one down without vastly reducing the others, as it's all premised on unchecked expansion of government into private lives at every level.
Any member of the House or Senate that attempted to pull the funding for the NSA would either find themselves at the center of a scandal (they know everything about you), or the more powerful politicians on both sides of the aisle that are invested into the super state would go on the attack and bury the person. The NSA is six times the size of the CIA. They own Congress across the board, Hoover would be envious.
This is not a friendly government, they demonstrate that all over the world regularly, it should never be a surprise that it translates domestically.
Not to mention that CIA gets lots of their foundings from drug trafficking and you could cut off 50% of its money/air supply and they would still run on full throttle.
Its an easy Google search so I won't point to sources but at some point I understand CIA owning drug grounds. You see a billion of dollars in profits from something that is illegal on its face: you have too choices: being a good decent human being and shut this entire thing down, or being a greedy evil man and get into the roots of it and run the game getting the biggest cut for yourself.
God only knows how many secret ops / black ops / unknown organisations that even don't have names, the US government (and many others) are running, without other organisations or even the head of organisations knowing. One day we may find out some of those secrets which would be extremely interesting to learn.
This makes me wonder if the Wired article got a little jumpy when it wrote "the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up." Perhaps they've been told, but are not allowed to disclose the number publicly? Even if the latter is the case, it is disconcerting that elected officials cannot convey basic information about the laws they vote for to their constituents.