
In the 1970s, Congress investigated intelligence abuses. Time to do it again? - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/27/in-the-1970s-congress-investigated-intelligence-abuses-time-to-do-it-again/?tid=rssfeed
======
geophile
Yes, and can I have a pony?

The problem is that, in spite of his happy talk, Obama has always been as bad
as Bush on the first and fourth amendments, arguably worse. Remember, he voted
_for_ telecom immunity in 2008, when he was a senator.

From the article: "In the wake of Watergate, Democrats won large majorities in
both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1974. One of the first
items on the new Congress’ agenda was to investigate the intelligence abuses
of Richard Nixon and his predecessors."

From another article ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-
door-o...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-door-open-
to_n_156910.html)): "Responding to the most popular inquiry on the "Open for
Questions" feature of his website, Barack Obama said on Sunday that he is
"evaluating" whether or not to investigate potential crimes of the Bush
administration, but that he was inclined to "look forward as opposed to
looking backwards."

And even if Obama weren't so awful in this regard, Congress is not capable of
doing anything with real teeth.

~~~
fragsworth
> Congress is not capable of doing anything with real teeth.

Congress has the power, and is legally capable. They just don't want to, for
some fucking reason.

Someone explain to me why the Republicans don't get all up in arms about this
mess? They could easily blame it on Obama's administration to win support for
the next election. Even though they voted for the PATRIOT act, they can at
least put on an act of hating that one part where everyone gets spied on. It's
really not hard to put a spin on it where you can gain a ton of public
support.

Instead, the ONLY people we see who are angry about the whole situation are
the "fringe/crazy" ones: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, etc... which,
interestingly enough, lowers the credibility of outrage.

Meanwhile, everyone else in Congress and mainstream media proclaims Snowden a
traitor.

I've never been one for conspiracies (seriously, never in my life), but I'm
finding it more and more difficult to shake the feeling that there's something
going on with our government and media that we're all completely unaware of.
Their actions make absolutely no logical sense from an individual self-
interest perspective.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Someone explain to me why the Republicans don't get all up in arms about
> this mess?

Because they are the people (in some cases _literally_ , in other cases by
unbroken chain of ideological succession) that have been arguing about the
inherent power of the executive and that FISA and related restrictions on that
power are both unwise and unconstitutional since about 30 seconds after the
furor over the Nixon abuses that led to FISA died down (some of them didn't
wait that long.)

And probably because those of them that aren't on the fringes have more direct
and likely documented (even if those documents are classified, for the moment)
connections to the surveillance that has gone on under the last two
administrations than just that political advocacy for a principal which
supports surveillance.

> They could easily blame it on Obama's administration to win support for the
> next election.

Not if they were fully informed and fully supportive of it the whole way
through the previous administration and there is documentary evidence to prove
it. Kind of risky to try to make political hay out of a public demand to get
to the bottom of an outrage if you know that any significant investigation is
going to result in a paper trail some of whose tendrils point back to you.

------
hooande
The difference between now and 1970 is clear: NSA surveillance doesn't affect
the lives of the average american. Spying or not spying, the lives of most
people are the same as they have been. The NSA has been doing what its doing
for years, and most people have suffered no ill effect. We can't expect
Congress to be up in arms about philosophical privacy issues.

In the 70s on the other hand, Watergate was a really really big deal. It did
have an effect on the daily lives of most americans. A US President had never
resigned in disgrace before, and it was very much on peoples' minds. Congress
was fulfilling it's role to help the nation heal in a time of crisis.

The problem with this NSA story is that there hasn't been anything to make it
"real" in the minds of the average citizen. If people thought that Obama was
using surveillance to keep tabs on and punish his political enemies, people
would be up in arms. If the government was kicking down doors and arresting
people for thought crimes, Republicans in Congress would be out of their minds
with rage. Given the current political situation, it would only take evidence
of one abuse to make most americans rise up in protest. But we haven't seen
that yet.

This is why I think that Snowden overplayed his hand. Evidence of surveillance
is shocking, but it's not enough to incite people to action. If he could have
provided proof of just one actual abuse due to government surveillance, he
would have made the impact that he wanted and so much more. As it is, I'm
afraid that he might have thrown his lifestyle away for nothing.

~~~
rayiner
I've said this before, but privacy activists need to get in bed with the
hardcore conservatives on this one. Surveillance could be used to impose more
aggressive policing of taxes, it could be used to track gun purchases and use,
it could be used to track anti-abortionists, it could be used to spy on
religious groups, etc. Is the NSA spying on state and local governments? Could
surveillance be used to get a "47%" type soundbite to torpedo a future
conservative candidate?

Couching this debate in national security terms is a losing proposition,
because conservatives tend to want to defer to the federal government in
national security situations, and liberals are just ecstatic to finally have a
President who isn't seen as "weak." And hanging out with the libertarians is
pointless, because they do not and never will have any voting power in the
U.S. But there is tremendous potential here for an appeal to the frothy Tea-
party base of conservatives because there is a lot about NSA surveillance that
is contrary to their interests, or at least they would understand so if the
message were cast in their language.

~~~
mpyne
And another thing is that if Snowden had been _studiously careful_ not to
overstate the situation, or allow Greenwald to overstate the situation, there
would probably be a lot more uproar by the semi-interested citizenry.

PRISM was advertised as being a $20 million backdoor into people's email and
social media that would allow any ol' NSA analyst who felt bored to literally
watch peoples' thoughts form in their minds.

It turned out to be a $20 million program to automate an existing manual
process, with at least some measure of oversight controls (including non-
governmental oversight).

Google, Facebook, and other companies were forced by Snowden's or Greenwald's
lie to push back _hard_. WaPo revised their claim slightly to adjust, which
caused the media to focus on the claim being 'walked back'.

Clearing up that issue, in the process muddied up the whole issue, and at the
same time Snowden's credibility was taking shots about his salary, releasing
hacking details to China, etc.

Snowden has done a lot right from the P.R. aspect but by damaging his
credibility right from the get-go, he's allowed it to turn into the
geopolitical equivalent of a he-said/she-said... which is not something most
people have the gumption to care to try to resolve on their own. _Especially_
in politics, where we essentially expect all sides to lie anyways.

Another thing that probably didn't help was all the involvement from Russia,
Hong Kong, and China, but especially WikiLeaks and Ecuador (who are only one
step up from Venezuela nowadays). It is _very_ hard to try to line yourself up
as a concerned American citizen when you're sitting in a Russian airport,
being coached by Assange, and trying to flee to 'Chavez's little brother'. To
the extent that any change must necessarily be driven by the will of the
people, that whole thing was a mistake.

~~~
Joeri
Snowden's credibility is irrelevant. The credibility of the documents he
revealed is the only thing that matters. Those documents are credible because
the US government has treated them as classified, implicitly admitting that
they are accurate. If snowden was proven to be the greatest liar in the
history of humanity it would make those documents no less credible.

Also, any association with china, russia or ecuador is irrelevant. Again, it's
about what the US government is doing, and those countries have no bearing on
those actions. Sure, they probably do the exact same spying on their own
citizens, but even that is only tangentially relevant.

~~~
mpyne
> The credibility of the documents he revealed is the only thing that matters.

That's essentially my point WRT Snowden. The very documents he leaked were
inconsistent with his story. Now everything else that was leaked the
government can claim that the people are missing the context of, and about a
million other debate/propaganda techniques that come into play when you are
able to show that the messenger himself has biased their reporting.

> Also, any association with china, russia or ecuador is irrelevant.

It's _not_ irrelevant, and I explained why already. The impetus for change
_will have to come from the people_. By fleeing and making it Assange vs. the
U.S. (again) Snowden has made it that much less likely that the American
people will see the situation in terms of an assault on them personally, and
more likely that they will see it as an assault on America by unpopular
foreign governments.

What you are saying would be true if it didn't matter what the people thought,
but public opinion actually counts for a lot, even in America.

------
dvmmh
No. The congress/president are so scared of having another terrorist attach on
their watch that they are 100% sold on letting the NSA/FBI/CIA/NYPD do
anything they want to do in the name of safety/security.

This stems from the fact that the average American demands that they be safe
and anyone that "drops the ball" will bear their wrath next election cycle.
The average American values an illusion of safety/security FAR HIGHER than
their privacy.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>The congress/president are so scared of having another terrorist attach

This is an excuse. I'm more inclined to think it is the fantastical amounts of
money they get to play with, spoils for their districts and such.

~~~
saraid216
Those two explanations are not mutually exclusive. It's probably both, to
varying extents, in many different members.

------
a3n
This Congress?

If they do anything, it will be to enact legislation to make what's going on
appear more legal, in a chorus of harumphs.

~~~
wavefunction
And self-congratulations, don't forget those!

"Congress has shown once again a remarkable willingness to reach across party
lines to ensure that no problem is ever reported again. Time for a raise!"

I believe that government can work well for us, it's just the individuals in
there now in both major parties are by-and-large the worst sorts we could hope
for real oversight.

~~~
dllthomas
Oversight of secret programs by elected officials flat doesn't work, in a
system where money plays such a big role. The only ones who can speak on the
issue (with dollars) are those who know about it, and the only ones who know
about it are those asking for the power or the contract.

~~~
wavefunction
I've seen it work in real life, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.

~~~
dllthomas
You've "seen" oversight by elected officials reliably protect against abuses
in a secret program? What was your role?

~~~
wavefunction
Citizen only. I would cite Sens. Wyden and Udall as reliably working within
the system to expose the abuses in a strategic manner, knowing how powerful
the forces arrayed against them are.

Now certainly you can disagree with me and say that they should have exposed
everything they knew about the programs to the public, but I think their work
over the years has been more productive that that. Had they gone public, they
probably would have been replaced by other individuals all too interested in
quid pro quo.

~~~
dllthomas
My point is slightly different - Wyden and Udall have been great in public, on
this issue. My point is we have _no way of telling_ whether their walk matches
their talk behind closed doors. Hopefully it does, but I am not confident we
can _count_ on it.

You've not observed it, you've observed what you think and hope is it - it may
be, but it's not evidence until we know.

------
lettergram
The difference is that the president and congress are in on it, they approved
these measures and had been briefed (at least supposedly to some extent).

Also, based on what I currently know from watching and reading about the
current situation, there is suppose to be SOME form of checks and balances
between the FBI, NSA, CIA, some members Congress, judicial committees set up,
and the president. What is that committee going to find? That a large portion
of the government was doing something wrong, I doubt it.

~~~
XorNot
So did the people of the US though. There haven't been intelligence abuses
because this is all legal to do, and the laws are publicly available knowledge
if anyone would care to look.

If the issue is people think some of these things should be illegal, then the
challenge is to get the appropriate legislation changed. But if you're only
champions are people who think foreign intelligence should be shutdown
altogether (as Snowden has been moving his message towards), you're not going
to get very far (because it's an obviously stupid idea).

~~~
LoganCale
That's clearly not what Snowden has been saying or implying. The information
he released about Chinese spying and hacking was about what he considered
abuses, e.g. spying and hacking civilian infrastructure in China rather than
targeting state actors.

~~~
mpyne
Snowden has been saying in other realms that foreign citizens should have as
much privacy as U.S. citizens do, which essentially defeats the purpose of
having the NSA at all given how intertwined "national security-related"
communications are with the rest of our comms.

The other way you can go is to _degrade_ the level of protection from this
type of data collection an American gets to match what NSA can do for
foreigners (since having so much as one foreign party to a conversation makes
the whole thing fair game for NSA). But I don't think that would be
politically feasible, and it's not as if that would really make those who live
outside the USA feel any better about the idea of their data being collected.

~~~
camus
if they can spy on the rest of the world they will spy on you too,sooner or
later.

~~~
mpyne
Indeed, just like if they can wiretap a mafia boss's phone calls they could
tap mine, sooner or later.

~~~
keithnoizu
I regret never getting around to obtaining enough karma to be able to down
vote that post. That is a completely false analogy. It's more along the lines
of: "Indeed, just like if they can wiretap my son's girlfriend, because her
father was from Sweden, then they could tap mine, sooner or later"

~~~
mpyne
Well, that's just it.

Once you assume malice on the part of the government you _must_ assume they
can wiretap you for any reason at all.

What many here are saying is that is the reason for which we must not even
have this capability at all.

But why then do we allow other law enforcement tools that could also be
misused (even horribly misused)? David Simon had an interesting theory about
why the tech community is so up in arms about _this_ one.

------
jdp23
Great interview.

The last poll I saw on this was that over 75% want a committee to investigate,
and roughly the same percentage cross party lines. "A new Church committee" is
one of the demands from StopWatching.us and from EFF et. al.'s open letter to
Congress.

~~~
uvdiv
Doesn't the Church Committee still exist? It's the Select Committee on
Intelligence:

[Senate, ex Church]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence)

[House, ex Pike]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Permanent_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence)

The current chair is Dianne Feinstein, who apparently supports everything the
NSA is doing.

------
guelo
In the current political climate I think the best chance to stop it would be
for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits. That would require the courts to
allow the lawsuits to proceed, which might happen now thanks to Snowden.

If not, then the next best chance would be some Nixon-level scandal over
partisan spying abuses that spurs congress into action. Though that could take
decades before it happens.

------
ferdo
The chairman of that committee, Frank Church, warned about the NSA in 1975:

> "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people,
> and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to
> monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter.
> There would be no place to hide."

> "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge... I know the
> capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to
> it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate
> within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over
> that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Warning_about_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Warning_about_the_NSA)

------
superuser2
It doesn't seem like anyone outside of HN considers these abuses. If anything
Congress will investigate how to stop all these leaks, not the programs being
leaked.

------
badman_ting
You know you're screwed when you start hoping Congress will save you.

------
mtgx
I'm all for it. But hopefully the Congress people that will be part of the
investigation team won't be the same people that butt-kissed the intelligence
chiefs at the past 2 hearings.

Put Wyden and Udall in charge, or even better - some people from EFF/ACLU.

~~~
uvdiv
Wyden and Udall are already on the Senate committee that oversees the NSA.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence#Members.2C_113th_Congress)

They have been for years, if anyone's been paying attention.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-
sen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-senators-
warn-about-use-of-patriot-act.html)

~~~
davidcuddeback
Yes, but the reason that they would be good candidates to lead the hearings is
that they've been trying to warn us about surveillance abuses for a while.
They didn't wait until it was politically advantageous (read: after the
Snowden leak) to do so.

Source: the second link in your comment.

------
D9u
I dislike the idea of "private contractors" having access to my data, much
less government secrets. These private spies provide a layer of insulation
between their actions and the checks & balances which are supposed to protect
us from civil rights abuses by the government.

I'm not sure how many "private contractors" the NSA had in the 1970's but I'm
sure that the recent revelations would not have gone without public outcry in
the 70's, and just as the use of mercenaries in wartime was once frowned upon
in the USA, so would the news of "mercenary-spies" operating outside the
direct oversight of the US government be frowned upon.

------
saosebastiao
The most surprising thing about this article was that Idaho actually elected a
democrat to the Senate once upon a time.

~~~
dllthomas
The parties have moved all over the map over the last 100 years.

------
j_baker
_His committee examined the actions of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies
between World War II and the 1970s._

Let's hope that it doesn't take another 30 years for these issues to be
resolved. Though given the attitudes of the people on these committees, I
don't give that good odds.

------
Thiz
In the 70s Nixon was impeached for spying on the democrats, will Obama get
impeached for spying on all americans?

------
pawrvx
This is not the same Congress anymore

------
DanielBMarkham
We absolutely need this, but for this to happen you are going to need one of
the leaders of either the senate or house to buy-in. Not likely without
kicking the current yahoos out. Remember, it's mostly these same guys who put
us here in the first place.

------
stackedmidgets
It was only a temporary fix last time, would be an even more temporary fix
this time.

