General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhoa, And... Oopsie... 'The Danger of NSA Spying on Members of Congress' - TheAtlantic
The Danger of NSA Spying on Members of CongressAn executive-branch agency has been empowered to store revealing information about the communications of everyone in the legislature.
Conor Friedersdorf
Jan 6 2014, 12:00 PM ET
<snip>
Should anyone doubt how much mischief could come from spying on even one member of Congress, let's look back at the story of former Democratic Representative Jane Harman and what happened when the NSA intercepted and transcribed one of her telephone calls. That's right: There's a known instance in which a legislator's private communications were captured by the NSA, though it's a complicated story, and there isn't any conclusive evidence that the NSA did anything wrong. In fact, the NSA's apparent blamelessness is what makes this story particularly instructive: It shows that intercepting congressional communications has a high cost even when it's done innocently, inadvertently, and defensibly.
The story begins with the NSA surveilling two Israeli nationals suspected of being spies. Unbeknownst to them, their phone calls were being recorded by the NSAand one day, a conversation with Harman got swept up in the ongoing wiretap. No one on the call knew it was being recorded.
"One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage," the New York Times reported on April 20, 2009, following up on a story broken by Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein.
Let's assume the NSA wiretap was totally legitimate. As Marcy Wheeler noted at the time, it seems to have been approved by a court as part of a long-running investigation, and "the investigationand the wiretapswere the classic, proper use of FISA: for an intelligence investigation targeting suspected agents of a foreign power operating in the US ... We all better hope the NSA listens closely to conversations between powerful members of Congress and suspected spies, and that when they make quid pro quo deals, that conversation gets looked at much more closely."
But the story doesn't end there. Congressional Quarterly reported that a criminal case against Harman was dropped because she was a useful ally to the Bush Administration:
First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harmans wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation ... But thats when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened. According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he needed Jane to help support the administrations warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program.
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.
More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-nsa-spying-on-members-of-congress/282827/
underpants
(182,279 posts)Mother ripping g@! Stinking Dammit!!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)This Harman story is just one example.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)When are these FUCKS going to prison!!!!111!!!!
spin
(17,493 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)How Ray McGovern put the situation back in 2006:
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8349
spin
(17,493 posts)It was an interesting and chilling read but obviously the "Big Brother" government he envisioned lacked the capacity to surveil citizens that the NSA has today.
I don't wear a tin foil hat but still it seems logical that those who control the mega-data have tremendous power. I'm beginning to wonder if it makes any difference who we elect.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thankfully, Orwell put his ideas down on paper. While he didn't see the arrival of computing, Terry Gilliam did in his outstanding film, "Brazil," where the Memory Hole was partly electronic, but still required a lot of paperwork and tubes to get the job done of keeping history straight and the tabs on everyone.
Here's something else worth reading:
-- Chris Hedges, "The Last Gasp of American Democracy."
I wonder if the Authorities go first for those who wear tinfoil because they see what's coming or if they go for those who organize to stop them? The recent record shows the latter.
spin
(17,493 posts)we are concisely. Thanks.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Thanks...
2banon
(7,321 posts)Here was this Democratic Congress member, for several years promoting the Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc, NSA etc etc, when all along she was working for the Israeli government. A government which despite so called relations as allies, has sanctioned and engaged in espionage (perpetrated against the U.S.) "intrigue" for years.
I recall tireless campaign efforts to unseat her and get elected an actual progressive in a very progressive district of Los Angeles, but to no avail. Pretty much revealing just how rigged and corrupt our "election" system actually is.
She was on all the cable shows daily running her stupid mouth about bullshit benefits of the patriot act etc. etc. She's someone I certainly don't miss, but unfortunately there are too many others just like her in Congress.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you have to move them to the I/P forum where they get deleted.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)following the Israeli spies to her isn't Stasi like to me or am I misunderstanding something here?
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)it's simply that the differences are so small and in the wrong places.
& R
malaise
(267,823 posts)<snip>
Harman defended the Bush administration's use of international (cross-border) warrantless wiretapping through the National Security Agency, saying: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities".[22] Harman suggested that both the original "despicable"[23] whistleblowers and the New York Times, which broke the story, should be investigated, and in the case of The Times, "limits on press immunity" should be looked into.[24] Harman repeatedly pressured the Times not to publish the warrantless wiretap story. In late 2004, Harman called Phillip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief of the Times, to discourage him from running the story. In December 2005, Harman was among a group of lawmakers who visited Taubman in an attempt to convince him not to run the story.[25] Following reports in April 2009 of her conversations being recorded without her knowledge, she appeared to take a different stance regarding wholly domestic wiretaps. In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC:
That's what I've asked Attorney General Holder to doto release any tapes, I don't know whether they were legally made or not, of my conservations about this matter... and to hope that he will investigate whether other members of Congress or other innocent Americans might have been subject to this same kind of treatment. I call it an abuse of power in the letter I wrote him this morning...I'm just very disappointed that my countryI'm an American citizen just like you arecould have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I'm one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, but I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I'm thinking about others who have no bully pulpit, and may not be aware, as I was not, that right now, somewhere, someone is listening in on their conversations, and they're innocent Americans.
Jane Harman, [26]
More than a few DUers were 100% right about her
Whisp
(24,096 posts)how do you come to grips with this?:
US diplomats spied on UN leadership
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
or is this Obama's fault too, that he didn't stop her or watch over her?
neverforget
(9,434 posts)so why wouldn't it be his "fault"? Where does the buck stop?
I want this shit to change (domestic intelligence gathering/metadata) under him because under a Republican President, it'll only get worse.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and it sure the hell won't if Clinton gets in.
and if she is as responsible and oh so great, why the hell would she have to be watched like a child. Oops, me bad - blame the Pres, come on! where is the adulthood here?
neverforget
(9,434 posts)my top pick. I don't know who I want right now but someone more liberal than Hillary for sure.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Maybe not,
but we are certainly heading in THAT direction,
and the Political Leadership of BOTH Parties show NO inclination that they see a problem.
More like Full Speed Ahead, and damn the icebergs.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)People here seem to forget the Atlantic was taken over by neo-cons
Article author Conor Friedersdorf has been a regular contributor to The American Conservative
Jeff Stein, whose CQ article Conor Friedersdorf quotes in this article, was much beloved by the Bush administration for his book Saddam's Bombmaker: The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's Secret Weapon, co-authored with Khidir Hamza, an associate of serial liar Ahmad Chalabi, also much beloved by the Bush administration. These three guys played a significant role by providing propaganda support for the recent Bush Iraq adventure
Stein's CQ article was actually a hit piece on Jane Harmon: he claimed in Harman told a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage charges against two officials of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for the agent's agreement to lobby Nancy Pelosi to name Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee
Haermon's response at the time was The CQ Politics story simply recycles three year-old discredited reporting of largely unsourced material to manufacture a scoop out of widely known and unremarkable facts
Glenn Greenwald, of course, thought it a major scandal, but it was before his current NSA kick, so his take was along the simpler (but still well-established) Greenwald tack of portraying Dems and Repubs as corruptly in cahoots: ... Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Steins scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman ...
So Conor Friedersdorf is doing what conservatives often do best, trying to revive old discredited stories by pretending to find a new spin. It must be hard to be so short on ideas
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Have a nice evening.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Gettin kind of old, no?
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)Stein's story was itself a resurrection of a 2006 attack on Harmon, and it principally involved unnamed sources. Harmon disputed the story at the time. After five years, has anything more come to light?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)by emptywheel
Posted on April 20, 2009
<snip>
...
...
...
But the fact that Harman was picked up on a wiretap is not one of them.
What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington. <my emphasis>
And...
<snip>
Link: http://www.emptywheel.net/2009/04/20/jane-harman-stupid-and-reckless-not-the-victim-of-illegal-wiretaps/
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)the question is what we know now about the veracity of Stein's 2009 report, which deserved to be questioned because Harmon, AIPAC, the FBI, the Justice Department, and others all disputed parts of it
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Would you be opposed to opening up the documents to see what REALLY happened ???
Thanks in advance.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)How do you feel about Harman pressuring the NYT to hold the story until AFTER the 2004 Presidential election ???
I wonder how the John Kerry campaign feels about it.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)In fact, I dislike and distrust most of the names and institutions appearing in this supposed "NSA wiretap caught Harmon promising to intervene on behalf of AIPAC but Gonzales intervened to prevent her prosecution" story that Stein resurrected in 2009 and that Friedersdorf is trying to resurrect again here
As I've already said upthread, I think Jeff Stein and his pals helped justify Bush's Iraq adventure. I regard Conor Friedersdorf as a rightwinger. I think there's good reason to distrust the NSA. I despise Gonzales. The 2006 story on Harmon smells to me like one of the Bush administration's efforts to intimidate people. AIPAC, and the particular lobbyists prosecuted here, rate rather low in my book. And I'm pleased Harmon's not in Congress now
That being said, I need to be able to think as clearly as possible about politics in order to make any difference, which requires me to try to ascertain facts as accurately as I can and to recognize when I don't actually know the facts. Knee-jerking on the story because I distrust the NSA or because I happen to dislike Harmon might be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't qualify as reality-based thinking. I'd like to win some of these fights, and in my experience simply following my emotional predilections doesn't help me win
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the MAFIA operated...is what we are seeing these days from those PEOPLE we PAY with our Tax Dollars who are working against us and using our hard earned money for their own nefarious schemes.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Your ignorance is not as good as that person's knowledge. The people who run the Middle East desk at State, at Defense, at Langley know more than you. It is not "authoritarian" to say so. It is plain fact! They've never lied to us before and there's no reason for them to start now!
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)petty little secrets. You would think that we have learned from J. Edgar how dangerous that is. We have no privacy, and frankly, we've earned it thought our refusal to protect our freedom.