This is true, but it's not the entire truth either. Most congressmen don't have access to the really sensitive intelligence that comes from these surveillance operations, so it can't be that useful to many of them.
A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected, and working to remove powerful operations like this deeply threaten a legislator's political viability during elections. Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections.
This, to me, is the heart of the issue. American politics are fundamentally corrupted by campaign financing
British politics is not; the scale of our financial political scandals would make a DC lobbyist giggle at the quaintness of it. This is also true of the other Five Eyes, and yet all of them are trying to be just as aggressive as each other, there’s just a difference in scale of the parent country.
I’m not arguing for or against anything here, just noting that intelligence agencies in similar countries which aren’t beset by campaign finance woes are doing exactly the same thing.
> A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected
is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.
Having them care about getting reelected is one thing, having them care primarily about funding their campaign (because, while the deepest pockets may not always win, that is usually the way to bet) is quite another.
I don’t think elections themselves, or manipulating what people care about, is the “simplest way” to do anything. It will make a giant mess, but there are simpler ways to do that too.
I don’t know the simplest way, but my guess is that it includes breaking down the current few large non-self-sufficient communities with poorly-defined value systems and weak social fabric into many small self-sufficient communities with well-defined value systems and strong social fabric, each of which will have less internal turmoil and therefore be better-equipped to be a healthy member of the ecosystem.
> Schumer: “Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community. They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at ya.”
Pretty easy fix is to make it illegal for them to not have the info. Then again I would prefer laws entirely removing the idea of sensitive information from the government. It is like a gun. A useful tool, very important for defending yourself, but those who have abused it in the past lose the right to it no matter how useful it is. The government has abused secret information in the past and as such should no longer be alloweed to have it. I rather we didn't have spies than to have the same laws protecting spies also cover up and enable child sexual abuse.
The CIA has deep ties to the American upper classes. And probably serves their interests over the states. Or their own interests. Aldrich Ames was living well beyond is means for years. A good supposition is people at his level routinely trade intel to 'friendly' government an corporate interests.
Then imagine a single entity that has every domestic text, phone call, and email ever sent, searchable and indexed, on any politician, judge, or candidate. It's far, far, more power than merely spying on foreign powers.
That’s hardly unique to the US. Other nations’ intelligence agencies tend to attract the aristocracy, e.g. all the Oxbridge alum at MI6/GCHQ.
I read a book recently about a young (19!) year old tank commander in WW2 and he was told by his CO when arriving in Normandy that his life expectancy was 10 days.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Action-Armoured-Commanders-194...
There is a lot of evidence that the CIA is doing whatever it can to ensure that the %1 of American society get their way with the world, however. That's not the same as 'serving country and government', by any stretch of the imagination.
There is in fact a lot of evidence that they serve the country.
I am surprised that they really have zero cases where mass surveillance helped. I would have thought they would make some up at least, but that got probably too hot.
Of course there is a massive amount of secret cases where it did help, but they just cannot tell you about...
It is a bad excuse that can be used to justify anything. Instead the case for secrecy needs justification.
Remember that Snowden always said he was ready to come back to the U.S and be trialled, as long as the trial wouldn't be a secret trial. Those who created the laws for those secret trial where not the CIA or the NSA, it was politician.
The same way they made it so that it is forbidden to talk about the programs of certain agencies, even for law maker, meaning they approve programs without debate, with only a few senator knowing what the program is even about.
They created those laws, not the NSA, not the CIA, they could choose as easily to remove them. But it is too useful for them. The NSA can create a massive surveillance network that serves them without having to ever disclose it to the public.