IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
You assume that the systems put in place (by the NSA) for whistleblowing (about the activities of the NSA) will actually work.

I don't share your optimism, mainly because we know we can't trust the NSA further than I can comfortably spit a live, struggling rhino.
New Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
http://www.law.corne...de/text/50/403-3h

(a) Office of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
There is within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence an Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
(b) Purpose
The purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is—
(1) to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;

[...]

(c) Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
(1) There is an Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be the head of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

[...]

(4) The Inspector General may be removed from office only by the President. The President shall communicate in writing to the congressional intelligence committees the reasons for the removal not later than 30 days prior to the effective date of such removal. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

[...]

(f) Limitations on activities
(1) The Director of National Intelligence may prohibit the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community from initiating, carrying out, or completing any investigation, inspection, audit, or review if the Director determines that such prohibition is necessary to protect vital national security interests of the United States.
(2) Not later than seven days after the date on which the Director exercises the authority under paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an appropriately classified statement of the reasons for the exercise of such authority.
(3) The Director shall advise the Inspector General at the time a statement under paragraph (2) is submitted, and, to the extent consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, provide the Inspector General with a copy of such statement.
(4) The Inspector General may submit to the congressional intelligence committees any comments on the statement of which the Inspector General has notice under paragraph (3) that the Inspector General considers appropriate.


The IC IG was set up by Congress. While not all-powerful when it comes to investigations, they are independent, and if the President or DNI interferes with his or her investigation, they have to report to Congress on why they're doing so.

IG's aren't puppets.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: FWIW re: "facing justice"
The same Congress that Clapper quite happily lied to?

I default to a "their lips are moving, therefore at best there's something they're not telling me, but most probably they're outright lying" position.

I suspect that the reality is that they're as plausibly independent as they need to be in order to be visibly plausibly independent.

Behold! Oversight!

(Merry Xmas, btw!)
New Devil's advocate.
http://www.washingto...99ff459_blog.html

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.): “This is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference, and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ‘The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.’

“The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: “No, sir.”

SEN. WYDEN: “It does not?”

DIR. CLAPPER: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

SEN. WYDEN: “Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.”

— exchange during a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, March 12, 2013


Clapper was between a rock and a hard place. Wyden said he wanted a yes or no answer. It was an open session. There was no way for him to accurately describe what the NSA on this front does without either: 1) giving up classified information about "sources and methods" in an open session, or 2) giving a misleading answer.

Wyden knew the best way to get a complete, straight answer from Clapper about the details.

Now maybe Clapper has been misleading the committee about what the NSA has been doing. If that's the case, then by all means go after him (and the NSA). But I don't think that this was the way to do it.

And if this is the best example of Clapper "lying to Congress" then he's been a very good boy. Everyone testifying to Congress shades the truth to their best advantage - it's human and institutional nature. That's why Congress should get testimony from a variety of viewpoints...

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
     more on flogging Snowden's dead horse - (boxley) - (24)
         Old news. - (Another Scott) - (22)
             Baby-with-bathwater; out-throw? - (Ashton) - (16)
                 Don't let me get to you. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                     Nevertheless we are puzzled - (rcareaga) - (14)
                         Re: Nevertheless we are puzzled - (Another Scott)
                         FWIW re: "facing justice" - (drook) - (10)
                             Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                 Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                             Devil's advocate. - (Another Scott)
                                 See da box on their charter - (drook) - (3)
                                     If they're within their charter, then it's not whistleblowin - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         I very much doubt his ability - (jake123) - (1)
                                             Heh.. most astute, that last! (wheels-within-wheels churn..) -NT - (Ashton)
                                 Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Ashton)
                         what is that 1/2 crap? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                             rofl. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
             On salary - (S1mon_Jester) - (4)
                 It's part of the piece for me. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Personally, I don't care.. if he fails to live up to your - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Well said. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     Okay...I missed that article - (S1mon_Jester)
         WaPo interview w/Snowden 12/23/13 - (rcareaga)

Get thee to a nunnery! O besmirched daughter of priapic Chic-worship.
82 ms