Replies

And you believe the government employees and their supposed checks/balances and procedures?

The IRS isn’t supposed to target specific people, groups etc for additional scrutiny, much less promulgate taxpayer information to other people outside the IRS. But they did that.

The EPA isn’t supposed to treat FOIA requestors differently, but they do.

The FBI is supposed to run a completely above-board operation, but they’re perfectly content to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms. Oh, and incinerate men, women and children.

You trust the NSA’s “checks and balances?” Then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

You trust the NSA’s “checks and balances?” Then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

There is a difference between the cases you listed and the NSA. A big difference.

In the case of the IRS or the EPA the Checks and Balances are under the direct control of Obama. He calls the shots. Blind obedience follows. Congress has very little to say about how business is conducted. There are really no rules.

In the case of the FBI, Obama and Holder run the show any way they want. Enough said on that. We all know how that works.

The case of NSA collecting our E-mails and phone records is different. There are strict rules and direct Congressional oversight. There is also a security clearance hierarchy that goes well above TS and not just everyone has access to everything just because they have a TS clearance.

All of this makes the idea that Obama can get a funnel directly to any info that NSA collects and use if for political purposes is problematic. While not impossible, it would not be easy and it would raise flags left and right.

Another thing that is worth pointing out is the general political position of the people involved at NSA and companies like Booz-Allen. They are much more disposed to the GOP then, for example, the equivalent members of the IRS who are, I believe, about 95% registered Dems. So blind obedience is not so easy at NSA. I think if pressure was applied by Obama someone in Congress would hear about it. But I'm just speculating on that. You can never be sure.

So don't throw out the "Check and Balances" so easily. Yes, they may be corrupted a bit. Maybe a lot. But actually have very little evidence of that with the possible exception of the nearly universal rubber stamp of the FISA judges.

If I'm right about the Check and Balances then that doesn't mean that the power given to NSA is not too much. It probably is in which case Congress should step in and limit that power. But I would hesitate to throw out the Baby with the Bathwater. We still need somebody watching out for those pesky Chinese and Russians not to say the French.