Chilling questions: Don't bet on answers
A bipartisan group of 26 U.S. senators has posed a chilling question to James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence: Is the National Security Agency collecting “metadata” on records other than those for telephones and email?
The question came in a Friday letter from a group led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., reports The Washington Free Beacon. “We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law,” they wrote.
The senators want to know if the NSA is compiling data on things such as firearms and book purchases. The former, of course, would amount to an illegal national database of gun ownership, a shocking circumvention of the law. The latter would represent a shocking government move to monitor the philosophical bents of the citizenry, a most Orwellian move.
Indeed, Section 125 of the Patriot Act allows collection of a wide range of information — but in a “stepped” process, supposedly, that requires, supposedly again, the approval of the secret court overseeing such things.
So, what exactly is the NSA collecting from us? And can the American people, in any way, shape or form, expect an honest answer to this letter from Mr. Clapper?
After all, he's the same fella who gave that self-described “least untruthful answer” he could give when he told a Senate panel the government does not “wittingly” collect any type of data on the citizenry.
We are not encouraged during this week in which we celebrate our liberties.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Blaming Israel: A new low
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- The Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- A Pa. Senate lawsuit?: The claptrap of connivers
- Payments in lieu of taxes: It’s worth a try in Kittanning