Senators: Newly Declassified Documents Reveal Previously Secret CIA Bulk Collection (washingtonpost.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Washington Post: The CIA has a secret, undisclosed data repository that includes information collected about Americans, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Thursday. While neither the agency nor lawmakers would disclose specifics about the data, the senators alleged the CIA had long hidden details about the program from the public and Congress. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico sent a letter to top intelligence officials calling for more details about the program to be declassified. Large parts of the letter, which was sent in April 2021 and declassified Thursday, and documents released by the CIA were blacked out. Wyden and Heinrich said the program operated "outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection."
"CIA recognizes and takes very seriously our obligation to respect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons in the conduct of our vital national security mission," Kristi Scott, the agency's privacy and civil liberties officer, said in a statement. "CIA is committed to transparency consistent with our obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods." The CIA released a series of redacted recommendations about the program issued by an oversight panel known as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. According to the document, a pop-up box warns CIA analysts using the program that seeking any information about U.S. citizens or others covered by privacy laws requires a foreign intelligence purpose. "However, analysts are not required to memorialize the justification for their queries," the board said.
According to Wyden and Heinrich's letter, the CIA's bulk collection program operates outside of laws passed and reformed by Congress, but under the authority of Executive Order 12333, the document that broadly governs intelligence community activity and was first signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. "It is critical that Congress not legislate without awareness of a ... CIA program, and that the American public not be misled into believe that the reforms in any reauthorization legislation fully cover the IC's collection of their records," the senators wrote in their letter. There was a redaction in the letter before "CIA program." Additional documents released by the CIA Thursday also revealed limited details about a program to collect financial data against the Islamic State. That program also has incidentally snared some records held by Americans. "These reports raise serious questions about the kinds of information the CIA is vacuuming up in bulk and how the agency exploits that information to spy on Americans," Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "The CIA conducts these sweeping surveillance activities without any court approval, and with few, if any, safeguards imposed by Congress."
"CIA recognizes and takes very seriously our obligation to respect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons in the conduct of our vital national security mission," Kristi Scott, the agency's privacy and civil liberties officer, said in a statement. "CIA is committed to transparency consistent with our obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods." The CIA released a series of redacted recommendations about the program issued by an oversight panel known as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. According to the document, a pop-up box warns CIA analysts using the program that seeking any information about U.S. citizens or others covered by privacy laws requires a foreign intelligence purpose. "However, analysts are not required to memorialize the justification for their queries," the board said.
According to Wyden and Heinrich's letter, the CIA's bulk collection program operates outside of laws passed and reformed by Congress, but under the authority of Executive Order 12333, the document that broadly governs intelligence community activity and was first signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. "It is critical that Congress not legislate without awareness of a ... CIA program, and that the American public not be misled into believe that the reforms in any reauthorization legislation fully cover the IC's collection of their records," the senators wrote in their letter. There was a redaction in the letter before "CIA program." Additional documents released by the CIA Thursday also revealed limited details about a program to collect financial data against the Islamic State. That program also has incidentally snared some records held by Americans. "These reports raise serious questions about the kinds of information the CIA is vacuuming up in bulk and how the agency exploits that information to spy on Americans," Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "The CIA conducts these sweeping surveillance activities without any court approval, and with few, if any, safeguards imposed by Congress."
Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
and how is Assange doing?
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Snowden revealed criminal, unconstitutional domestic spying.
Assange published a presidential candidate's emails.
The American people had a right to know both. The fact that the emails were problematic was Hillary's fault not the messengers.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that Snowden did it out of principle, and Assange did it out of a narcissistic desire for fame. Snowden believed that US agencies were violating the constitution and the FISA act. First went to his superiors, but when they did nothing he released some very specific material to prove what was happening. In contrast, Assange manipulated a psychologically damaged soldier to get his hands on any random government document he could. He communicated the contents to his political allies, time
Re: (Score:1)
i guess you haven't read the new book that exposes how people like YOU have been completely brainwashed by lies.
if you don't support Assange, you don't know what is going on, or your a psychopath. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet Snowden is still forced to exile
What he did was illegal and still is today. He wasn't exiled, he fled the country instead of facing justice for what is indisputably a crime that he committed.
The contents of his massive dump didn't justify what he did, and the punishment he could be on the hook for didn't justify fleeing the country.
He decided to plead his case from Russia instead of our justice system, and hasn't presented a case to absolve him of his crimes.
Why is Snowden still in Russia? He doesn't want to go to jail. Does he deserve
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the CIA did was completely illegal and is still illegal today. How come they aren't all outed and in jail?
When *everybody* is playing by the same rules then maybe you'll have a point. Until then you're just a boot licker.
Re: (Score:2)
it's established fact that there are people employed to spout BS on 'influential sites' on the behalf of various agencies in various countries.
a good portion of the idiot posts supporting government and intelligence agencies and denigrating whistleblowers and journalists are those employees.
the remaining portion are useful idiots.
You either believe we have the right to know where our tax dollars are going and what those using our tax dollars are doing, or you simply don't give a shit about fellow human bein
Re: (Score:1)
What the CIA did was completely illegal and is still illegal today. How come they aren't all outed and in jail?
Because nobody really cares what Eisenhower has advised 60 years ago:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -- Eisenhower's farewell address [wikipedia.org]
The said citizenry are indeed alerted -- by FUDs such as North Vietnam fired torpedoes on your ships [wikipedia.org], Iraqi soldiers killing babies [wikipedia.org], Iraq's about to bombard you with WMDs [washingtonpost.com] [*], and the CCP's trying to spy on you [foreignpolicy.com] [**], while they are considered knowledgeable if they could locate their own country on the world map [upi.com].
* Nobody has been jailed for deceiving us on Vietnam or Iraq. In fact they were all retired with handsome benefits.
** And the s
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA is the private global police force for big business.
Re: (Score:1)
hide behind anonymous coward a little bit more.
you should be ashamed of yourself, and your attitude. I sure hope you're not a parent - not just for the whole gene pool thing, but because the world you are leaving to your children is going to be that little bit shittier because of people like you.
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
What he did was illegal and still is today.
What he did was necessary in order for us to have a chance to have a healthy democracy, but we are currently squandering that chance by failing to act. You're acting like legality is the end-all, but it is not. The holocaust was legal. Why don't you defend that for your next act?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
We have ceased to be a democratically-elected-republic and have become an oligarchy a while ago.
Wrong. This was never a real democracy, it was designed from the beginning to be an oligarchy, that's why the constitution originally gave the vote only to landed white males.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:2)
You mean preventing them from voting in laws that might lead to them owning something?
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to whose law ? Are you appealing to a higher jurisdiction like the World court or the Court of Opinion. Clearly the genocide is bad ,clearly it shouldn't be allowed, clearly it should be illegal but if a nation states 'killing these people is legal' in what jurisdiction is it illegal.
Only in the US was what Snowden did illegal, but in the Court of Opinion I think the center of mass swings pro-Snowden.
There are whistle blower protections, there's a very good chance that Snowden would be found not guilty even in the US in a fair trial, he doesn't believe he would get one and he's probably not wrong. Certainly the US has never stated he'd get one.
Funny that you say that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read more than one Historian explain the compliance of German citizens involved in the ethnic cleansing as being a case of them complying with LEGAL orders.
During the Nuremberg trials the Nazi defendants used the apparent legality in their defense arguments. Thankfully we now have laws in place to protect people disobeying legal orders (....well, used to.. today it seems up for debate).
There's a difference between LEGAL and what any non-psychopath would consider right.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between LEGAL and what any non-psychopath would consider right.
Yep, we have a winner. The continual appeals to legality only demonstrate a lack of morality. Any time someone counters charges of abusive behavior with "it's legal" you know you're dealing with a sociopath at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You DO know what the term civil disobedience means, right?
The government was [imdb.com] illegally spying on people. But let's shoot the messenger and ignore the message!
Re: (Score:1)
"Justice"
I sure would love to live in the same bubble of ignorance you do, so that I wouldn't be so worried about how we're all being fucked over by a system out of control, and instead sleep soundly at night knowing i've done my part to cheerlead the system.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think he didn't flee injustice? From what he'd seen, the assumption to get a fair trial would be naive if not downright unrealistic.
His punishment is in question, not his guilt (Score:3)
yeah it was a crime, ... it is disgusting that he is treated as a criminal.
Your logic is lacking. If it was a crime, he is a criminal. If he feels there are mitigating circumstances, then he should present them at a trial.
Just because you think the ends justify the means, that doesn't mean that is the way the justice system works. Your assertion that he wouldn't get a "fair trial" means you already have decided what the outcome of the trial should be but are afraid it won't end up the way you want.
The outcome of the trial isn't in question - the punishment phase is where you ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The concerns over getting a fair trial are partly down to the government claiming that some of the evidence against him is classified, and must be kept secret even in court. It's quite possible that the jury would not be allowed to see it, and Snowden's lawyers not allowed to challenge it properly.
There's also the fact that the US regularly uses techniques considered to be torture, like solitary confinement. That is often used to defend against extradition requests from Europe, as here it's a human rights v
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does justice or fairness get anywhere near the US legal system? As the OJ trial showed, you can't just present anything to a court of law, and it is very likely the judge would consider mitigating circumstances immaterial to the question of his guilt or innocence. Even if they were brought up at sentencing, if I were the prosecutor I would argue that mitigating circumstances should be suppressed because there was no duress or imminent danger which precluded access to the court system.
As much
Re: His punishment is in question, not his guilt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Snowden couldn't even demonstrate he had standing to sue without revealing classified information, which he would not have been allowed to introduce, and likely would have been prosecuted for even revealing the existence of. That's without even introducing significant evidence of the government breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, IANAL, but the ACLU managed to find a way to sue over the NSA wiretapping, but I'm not sure how far that got.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Snowden is still forced to exile
Pointing out the Emperor is naked will do that to you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
... that he is guaranteed a fair trial.
They have consistently refused to guarantee that.
What he did was illegal. It is still illegal. It isn't going to become legal in the future and nobody is trying to change that.
At a fair trial, he would go to jail, and he doesn't want to.
His definition of a fair trial means he doesn't go to jail for what he did. What is the legal justification for that?
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Jury nullification
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
What he did was illegal. It is still illegal. It isn't going to become legal in the future and nobody is trying to change that.
What he did was let the world know about an American massacre of civilians [wikipedia.org]. Maybe what he did was illegal, but I'd rather live in a world where he goes free and the people who massacred those civilians go to jail. Revealing a massacre should be an absolute defense against espionage in the same way that the truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Re: (Score:1)
But when he fled, he also did a bulk downloaded of terabytes worth of NSA files. He grabbed every file that he could get his hands on, without paying any attention to what the files were actually about. he then handed those files over the Assange and the Russians and Chinese. Occasionally, some government spook speaks off the record. What they inevitable say is "people died because of all that other stuff the Snowden revealed". Those files blew the lid off a lot
to the Russian and Chinese (Score:2)
and to the man in the moon I guess. Maybe he even raped a woman in Sweden on his way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When the espionage act is involved a fair trial means it takes one minute to reach a verdict, the side of the defense is irrelevant. There is no distinction made between giving information to the press or to a hostile state actor.
So in your (and mine) interpretation of a fair trial the espionage act cannot be invoked to start with. I am not sure if the espionage act has been used against spies a lot, its purpose is whistleblowers not spies. For spies you can always use other laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under the Espionage act there is no requirement for proof at all. Intent is irrelevant and any statement about intent can be banned from the trial. And it would be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sure sounds like this law is illegal. The law was always aimed against dissenters much more than spies and its use is being expanded as well.
Before Obama it had only been used 3 times against whistleblowers and I recall that this failed against Ellsberg. Then under Obama years time it was used at least 8 times: Manning, Sterling, Kiriakou, Stephen Kim, Drake, Hitselberger, Leibowitz, Snowden. Winner was during Trump.
Then with Assange the use was expanded to journalists(not whistleblower) and foreigner(au
Re: (Score:2)
Under Trump there was also Daniel Hale. He entered prison recently.
Re: (Score:2)
and as far as I am concerned, if that was his choice he should be allowed to.
It's dickheads that support what is clearly a system of corruption that is COMPLETELY out of control by shouting 'what he did was illegal'.
What the Nazis did to Jews was legal under their laws.
wake. the. fuck. up.
the U.S. is in such a shit state right now BECAUSE intelligence agencies enable corrupt interests to prevent exposure. it would be better if we didn't have the kind of fertile cesspit for corruption to blossom in in the fi
Re: (Score:3)
No he would not. That is a complete and utter lie. He would be in a jail cell.
He'd have had at least a chance of being pardoned, if he hadn't fled overseas. That guy made bad decisions on top of bad decisions.
By the way, here we have another opportunity to ask ourselves why didn't Snowden contact anyone on the House or Senate Intelligence Committees. The source of this reporting. Or the Judicial committees for that matter.
Was it unpossible for Snowden to contact Senator Wyden then because dEeEp StAte but with this _CIA_ thing, he's on the ball now?
I really want to know what people
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm shocked" (Score:4)
Re:"I'm shocked" (Score:4, Informative)
Do we live in a monarchy? (Score:2)
"According to Wyden and Heinrich's letter, the CIA's bulk collection program operates outside of laws passed and reformed by Congress, but under the authority of Executive Order 12333"
According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch"
Do we live in a monarchy? The President can't just make up exec
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Do we live in a monarchy? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just that the CIA/NSA and other intelligence services repeatedly prove that they give no fucks about respecting the constitution and are perfectly fine, even when pointed out that they are committing treason, with violating it.
This has been going on for over a century, fwiw. That is how they are.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah well in the seventies it was still a scandal when the CIA secretly infiltrated and manipulated the press. Now the press proudly presents CIA people as their favorite sources. I have a list somewhere of 30 CIA people MSNBC works with
We're not in the same situation anymore as 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. After Trump became president, I was enheartened because of the animosity Trump clearly had for the FBI. I thought, "Finally, we have R and D united in their dislike of the FBI! We will get something done about them!"
But no, immediately after, the D team began to like the FBI, for some reason. "Winning" is more important than making the country better.
Re: (Score:1)
And that pretty much describes Russiagate for me. A massive rise of the security state since 2001 , and then in 2016 democrats getting together with mainly the FBI to tie Trump to Russia. As an outsider you had the choice between going along with it because you believed it or going along with it because Trump was shit and how they got him was secondary. The press had a third reason, anything Trump was good business. Russia itself was just a McGuffin.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump wasn't worse than Bush, and he wasn't worse than the FBI. We really missed out in our over-eagerness, by relying on lies to try to get rid of him. In the end, the lies didn't work, Trump self-destructed.
Re: Do we live in a monarchy? (Score:2)
It's pretty amazing how his campaign got so many people to forget his long history of using/abusing the system to enrich himself. I mean, there's a reason why he invited the Clintons to his wedding and it wasn't to lock them up.
We have an aristocracy (Score:2)
Re: We have an aristocracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American Presidents have been behaving as monarchs since at least the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SCOTUS recently ruled that gerrymandering and disenfranchising minorities was perfectly legal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
You live in a monarchy.
Nah - that's not an issue of monarchy (Score:3)
The laws that allow those forms of misbehaviour have been passed by the relevant legislatures. So it's not a case of monarchy, it's a case of a self serving oligarchy. ;) Let's get our allegations right here!
Incidentally the Economist this week has done an analysis that shows that the degree of abuse achieved by filibustering isn't that extreme overall, because both sides are doing it, a lot...
https://www.economist.com/unit... [economist.com]
Quit listening to idiot journalists (Score:2)
First, let's link to what SCOTUS actually said [supremecourt.gov] not some idiot journalist's opinion thereof regarding Benisek v. Lamone.
As you can see, this isn't a ruling on the merits at all. They haven't said that this is legal or not legal or changed any legal precedent at all. What they did say is that it's too close to the election to change the rules, so they dissolved a lower court's restraining order that would've made the rules unclear a few weeks before an election. They said that they'll hear the challenges t
So let's get a criminal investigation going (Score:2)
The right solution to this is to punish those who have broken the law. The point about a monarchy is that the King can get away with anything. Let's prove to 'The Smoking Man' and his minions that they can't...
And then I woke up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do we live in a monarchy? The President can't just make up executive orders out of the blue.
He sure can, if he claims it's for national security then not only can he make it up but you aren't allowed to know what it is. This is the government we've created. We either have to learn to live with it, or learn to change it. Good luck either way.
Re: (Score:1)
Executive Order 12333 was signed by President Reagan.
Not trying to score points in the Big Political Divide. I was just curious, so I looked it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we live in a monarchy? The President can't just make up executive orders out of the blue.
He can if the criminals profiting from it (here: the CIA) manage to keep things secret. And if not, there is at least some fake "legitimacy". You know, like in any well-run banana-republic where there is no rule of law to those in power.
Sounds legit (Score:3)
[OK]
Re:Sounds legit (Score:5, Funny)
They're running uBlock Origin - they never see the pop-up.
Re: (Score:1)
Good Funny!
I bet they are required to run it too.
Re: (Score:2)
"I order you not to see that pop-up!"
who else (Score:3)
Could be SigInt or some other buffoonery? William Casey was Reagan's CIA director in 1981. That was after the Church committee intelligence reforms. Casey was a real ass. They're the whole reason the Iran-Contra scandal got underway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're the whole reason the Iran-Contra scandal got underway.
It's rather amazing that anyone thought Iran-Contra was a good idea, let alone enough people to actually implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
When a circle-jerk says you're the good guy, everyone must admire everything one does fighting the 'big evil guy' (such as a democratically elected government that doesn't want to sell everything to foreign corporations).
Re: (Score:2)
They're the whole reason the Iran-Contra scandal got underway.
It's rather amazing that anyone thought Iran-Contra was a good idea, let alone enough people to actually implement it.
Actually, at first I thought it was a brilliant way to accomplish their goals. I remember thinking at the time "how come the Democrats can't think outside the box like that?" Then I realized that the box that was being thunk outside of was Federal law and the Constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
yah, we're sold on stupid ideas by presenting the good things they could do.
too many people don't consider the bad things they enable.
Paging Dr. Snowden (Score:1)
Surprising? (Score:4)
The only surprise in this story is no CIA apology to the effect that, "yes, we used to do that [collect and store data on American citizens] but we stopped several years ago and don't do it any longer because it's wrong."
Every few years they issue such a statement when they get caught.
Off in the distance... (Score:1)
It gets worse (Score:2)
So many comments here.. (Score:2)
Re: So many comments here.. (Score:2)
Is those damn russians! And chinese!
Re: So many comments here.. (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
I'm glad the CIA recognizes that the civil liberties of Americans - ALL Americans - have rights that are protected in law. Whether or not they actually safeguard those rights is secondary to the fact that they acknowledge those laws exist AND the fact that they acknowledge that their financing depends on being perceived as obeying those laws.
That's a start.
If the laws do not allow the CIA to operate in a manner that is necessary for the safety and security of Americans and the American nation, then there ne
And the NSA? (Score:3)
As we all know, the NSA is a worse offender than the CIA. So if this is what the CIA is admitting to, what do we suppose the NSA has been up to?
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to the TURBULENT and TURMOIL malware injection, data thieving and surveillance programs :D
Stupid Sith (Score:3)
It's right there in plain sight! "Executive Order 12333" -> "Order 12333" -> "Order 1+2+3 3+3" -> "Order 66".
And half of CNN "reporters" ... (Score:2)
Euphemisms for criminal acts (Score:5, Insightful)
"the CIA's bulk collection program operates outside of laws passed and reformed by Congress"
That's a wordy way of saying "is illegal."
Re: (Score:2)
"the CIA's bulk collection program operates outside of laws passed and reformed by Congress"
That's a wordy way of saying "is illegal."
That is a friendly way of saying "criminals doing criminal things".
Which Americans? (Score:2)
I'm going to make an educated guess that the people the CIA gathered information on are on one side of the political spectrum because secret weapons that are used by one side are kept secret by that side. By the same token, a secret weapon that works effectively against one side of the political spectrum will be exposed by the other side. Furthermore, a rumored secret weapon supposedly used by one side that turns out to be total B.S. will be "leaked" by the other side because odds are that the other side
Remember Clapper lying to Congress about it? (Score:2)
The government spies on us all the time (Score:1)