Why does not every Senator have access to the secret information?

[kentuck]

Why is it that only the most supportive and malleable have access, and then only 5 or 6 of them?

Why do they not trust the entire Senate with this information? Are they afraid one of them will spill the beans? And they know that the ones chosen can keep their lips sealed?

But what good does it do when private contractors are hiring people that are much less trustworthy than the US Senate and have access to more intelligence than some on the intelligence committee? Does that make sense to anyone?

Basically, there is a lack of sufficient oversight. When there is more oversight, there will be less secrets from the Executive Branch. In my opinion, that is where the reform needs to take place. We need more Senators guarding the guardians, other than the few rubber stampers that now have access. Also, 500K contractors with top secret security clearances is unthinkable. Nothing can be kept secret with that many eyes on it.

[idwiyo]

1. Because than everyone will know, and it will be the same as bad guys will know, and that will be

like letting terrorists win because they will know what everyone doesn't know right now.

There!

P.S. that was sarcasm, just in case someone managed to miss it.

[randome]

4. Whoa. Head rush.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[randome]

2. I believe there are 2 subcommittees, aren't there? So that's about 10-12 people.

The fewer who know about it, the better. Not just because of someone 'spilling the beans' but so that fewer people can be blackmailed, coerced, etc.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[bobduca]

3. Remember, legislative & judicial branches are only nominally required for appearance of oversight

Just like the TSA provides the appearance of security.

[unblock]

5. i thought they could

i thought they could request any classified information they pleased.

the catches are that they have to know exactly what to ask for, they can't bring staff along, they can't take notes -- well, technically, they can take notes, but the notes can't leave the room.

and then, of course, they can't publicly talk about it!

[randome]

6. There are ways around that whole "can't bring staff along" thing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[unblock]

11. yeah, certainly staff can have clearance of their own.

on the other hand, congresscritters probably aren't typically interest in the merely classified/secret/top-secret information, they're probably more interested in the compartmental/billeted stuff anyway.

i've always suspected that the way to get real information is (a) be of the same party as the president and (b) give the white house a vote in exchange for the privilege of seeing the info.

[randome]

13. I meant to be ridiculous, not serious. I neglected to preview my post with the pic.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[unblock]

14. ah, makes more sense now ;)

[Skidmore]

7. Frankly, I don't believe that Snowden had as much access to information as he claims.

Security systems are generally built so that those who need to know have access to what they need to know. I think the firewall put up in the Senate has more to do with the propensity some senators have shown in the past to spilling the beans when trying to score political points in a speech.

I frankly think there is something hinky about Snowden's story related to what type of access he had and to what type of information. If he had the type of access he claims, I think he was there hacking away from the inside, which is a whole other story. I'm not ready to give this guy a halo and a pair of wings and anoint him.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Wow, in a thread about our Congressional oversight you bring up Snowden as if he

matters and go all the way to halo and pair of wings when the OP did not mention the man's name.
You can give him a pitchfork and horns but the issue stays valid and with us. He's not the issue, although clearly his 'security clearance' was issued by incompetents.

[Skidmore]

19. No the OP asked about access to info by the Senate.

Security systems are in place all throughout the government with the need to know being a common criteria. In relation to this, I said that I didn't think the uberleaker had that type of security clearance either for the type of access he described. It just doesn't hang together. Period. Since Snowden and Senators are theoretically feeling around the same elephant there might as well be some consistency sought as to what we mean by security. It's my opinion.

[Andy823]

8. I don't know

But would you like all the tea party nuts to have access to anything that might be classified? These are the morons that want to take the country down, that want to destroy the current system and put in their own brand of government where if you don't think like they do, they would probably either lock you up, or use you for target practice.

[1-Old-Man]

9. Who are we to demand that our Government disclose what it does to us through our Representatives?

[kentuck]

10. Good question...

Some are perfectly happy if Diane Feinstein is the only Senator that knows the secrets. And she is nothing but a tool.

[1-Old-Man]

17. Amen brother!

or in the modern vernacular, 'true that'.

[Sheepshank]

12. There are of course always select committee members.

Collegues will share info all the time. All they have to do is ask. Many are too lazy assed to do just that.

BUT there are plenty of official's that like to deny knowledge in an attempt to pass off any appearance of collusuion.

[d06204]

15. You do realize that your first two paragraphs totally contradicts

your last paragraph? Aside from that, and this is not meant for you personally, I've read on this site (and others) how shocked and outraged people are that their personal information is being surveiled. Prior to these events hitting the news, people were going to the park, cooking brats, watching the little leaguers play, etc. Now the pundits, the press, and the opportunists are telling you that you must be mad with furious anger, rage, and disgust. They pit us again each other, they stir the pot ad nauseum and there you go, thinking emotionally, reacting emotionally...and the band played on.

Its all a little too convenient for me.

[FLyellowdog]

30. I have to disagree with you...

I haven't seen anyone cooking brats where I live...spanking them once in awhile or sending them to their rooms without dinner maybe...but cooking them? No way. Perhaps you need to consider moving to another area if that's happening in your neighborhood. Really.

[d06204]

31. Lol touche

Ha! Ha!

[JoePhilly]

18. Because our government is too large for every Senator to sit in, and participate directly,

in every single meeting and briefing that takes place.

That's why they create committees and subcommittees.

It's why they have staff.

No individual can be engaged, in real time, with every detail of every aspect of what's being debated in our government. Its not possible.

The members of the committees are selected by the leadership. And the leadership is selected by the full members of the House and Senate.

Those in Congress who are now screaming, are pretending that they don't know how this works, and also that they apparently don't understand their own role in it.

[kentuck]

21. Yes, the members of the committees are selected by the leadership...

But that's another problem.

[JoePhilly]

22. And the members PICK the Leadership!!!!!

The Members all KNOW this.

For any of them to act surprised that there are DETAILS that they don't know about is total BS.

[kentuck]

23. Are you saying that our Congress sucks?

..and are not doing their job?

[JoePhilly]

25. Actually, in regards to how they pick their leaders and the members of the

committees, no. They are doing it now, the same way that they have always done it.

And so again, for any of them, right or left, to act surprised that there are details surfaced in other committees in which they personally do not participate, is theater.

Now, are some of them not doing their job beyond that, absolutely. The GOP House is a great example of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Good old East Coast centric thinking...

[bluedeathray]

20. It's not an "In or Out" equation

Even if Congressmen are given a clearance, and many probably do NOT qualify, there is a specific, spelled out, applicable to every human, type classification process for coded data that has a "need to know" attached to it.

Even if you have a clearance, if it's not in your lane, you have no right, obligation, duty, or outraged sense of indignation to see it.

And at least (it's classified) 90% of contractors are ex-military, with clearances in place. They're the same people. Same oath, same uniforms in the closet (at one time).

But you're right about oversight. How to do it? I dunno... It's kind of surprising that more Americans aren't in the streets about this.

Freakin' Turkish go to tear down a park, and the public erupts. Politicians here shit all over our most precious document...meh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Because the watchers fear being watched.

[southernyankeebelle]

26. Because they have big mouths and can't keep quiet. Can you see Cruz or a Rand with

secrets? Heck look at Bachmann who sits on the intelligence committee who has leaked secret information.

[moondust]

28. +1. Some would use the information for pure political gain.

Hand it out like candy to big contributors, use it to smear their opponents, etc.

Probably best limited to as few as is necessary, although I don't know how it works in the case of discussion and voting on war resolutions, defense budgets, etc.

[kentuck]

29. Moonlight but no sunshine.

too bright.