Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
11. Funny how that is what the OP chose to highlight...
Wed Jul 31, 2013, 02:10 PM
Jul 2013

when IMHO this is the really important part:

We need straightforward answers and I am concerned that we are not getting them.

Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about classified programs in public settings, but the American people expect and deserve honest answers.

It also has been far too difficult to get a straight answer about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program. Whether this program is a critical national security tool is a key question for Congress as we consider possible changes to the law. Some supporters of this program have repeatedly conflated the efficacy of the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program with that of Section 702 of FISA. I do not think this is a coincidence, and it needs to stop. The patience and trust of the American people is starting to wear thin.

I asked General Alexander about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program at an Appropriations Committee hearing last month, and he agreed to provide a classified list of terrorist events that Section 215 helped to prevent. I have reviewed that list. Although I agree that it speaks to the value of the overseas content collection implemented under Section 702, it does not do the same with for Section 215. The list simply does not reflect dozens or even several terrorist plots that Section 215 helped thwart or prevent – let alone 54, as some have suggested.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

A Reasonable And Nuanced Statement, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2013 #1
Yes. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #2
"This bulk collection program has massive privacy implications." NoOneMan Jul 2013 #3
You Make A Pane Of Glass Look Like A Slab Of Slate, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2013 #4
Everyone's gotta be good at something NoOneMan Jul 2013 #5
Dunno, Sir: Seen Plenty Weren't Good At, Or For, A Damn Thing The Magistrate Jul 2013 #8
LOL! n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #7
actually, Pat Leahy's statement in whole, dear sir, is cali Jul 2013 #24
And You Believe Me Unable To Comprehend English, Ma'am, Because...? The Magistrate Jul 2013 #27
I, sir, would never suggest any such thing. You did, however cali Jul 2013 #30
Wheels Within The Wheels Within The Wheels Have Never Been Your Strong Suit, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2013 #32
oh, I don't know about that, dear sir. cali Jul 2013 #33
"Hypocrisy Is The Tribute Vice Pays To Virtue" The Magistrate Jul 2013 #34
Is the "dear sir" shtick a play on Dear Leader? Or is it simply DevonRex Aug 2013 #47
if you wanted to know you could simply have asked. cali Aug 2013 #48
You're welcome. I ProSense Jul 2013 #6
He may not condone the way it was disclosed, but if it hadn't been the "discussion" wouldn't Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2013 #9
Funny how that is what the OP chose to highlight... SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #11
"Funny"? Did chosing to "highlight" that point prevent you from reading the entire statement? ProSense Jul 2013 #12
Yes I am terribly upset.. SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #14
Yes, we're all free, and you chose to be upset because I "highlighted" text. ProSense Jul 2013 #16
Yes I'm terribly "upset"... SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #20
We all have opinions. Complaining about "highlighted" text seems silly. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #21
Yes I bet it does. SomethingFishy Jul 2013 #23
It's not ProSense Jul 2013 #25
Thanks for posting this. Sanity from Leahy. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #10
Leahy is contained RobertEarl Jul 2013 #13
"Trolls on DU act much the same s those who have obstructed Leahy." ProSense Jul 2013 #18
Alert? Not my game plan RobertEarl Jul 2013 #37
Ah, you're a self-admitted "troll" hunter. ProSense Jul 2013 #39
Mission? RobertEarl Jul 2013 #40
Wait ProSense Jul 2013 #41
Changed my mind RobertEarl Aug 2013 #50
And By Trolls, Sir, You Mean People You Disagree With And Do Not Like? The Magistrate Jul 2013 #19
Leahy is very critical in that statement. that he's polite, doesn't blunt that cali Jul 2013 #26
"we need to examine how to prevent this type of breach in the future." Zorra Jul 2013 #15
That's some really big type, but ProSense Jul 2013 #22
Well, since the crux of your beef with Snowden is that he didn't use official channels NuclearDem Jul 2013 #29
Actually, ProSense Jul 2013 #31
Breaking the Law to Defend Democracy William deB. Mills Aug 2013 #45
K&R BumRushDaShow Jul 2013 #17
we'll see. Leahy's been introducing legislation to do just that for a decade now cali Jul 2013 #28
I doubt he and most of the rest of them BumRushDaShow Jul 2013 #35
no, but he has staff and access to experts cali Jul 2013 #36
Yup. That's what usually happens. nt BumRushDaShow Jul 2013 #38
The text of Leahy's reform bill: ProSense Jul 2013 #42
Abuse of Power William deB. Mills Aug 2013 #43
Franken has been openly supportive of NSA activities despite recent revelations cali Aug 2013 #44
Where Does Senator Franken Stand on NSA Domestic Spying? William deB. Mills Aug 2013 #46
K & R Scurrilous Aug 2013 #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Statement of Senator Patr...»Reply #11