Ex-official warned against testifying on NSA programs

[Nordmadr]

The National Security Agency has warned a former intelligence officer that he should not testify to Congress about accusations of illegal activity at NSA because of the secrecy of the programs involved.

Renee Seymour, director of NSA special access programs stated in a Jan. 9 letter to Russ Tice that he should not testify about secret electronic intelligence programs because members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees do not have the proper security clearances for the secret intelligence.

Miss Seymour stated that Mr. Tice has "every right" to speak to Congress and that NSA has "no intent to infringe your rights."

However, she stated that the programs Mr. Tice took part in were so secret that "neither the staff nor the members of the (House intelligence committee) or (Senate intelligence committee) are cleared to receive the information covered by the special access programs, or SAPs."




http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-112622-2876r.htm

Neither staff nor members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees are entitled to this intelligence? The Intelligence Committees? Let me see, why wouldn't he report the infractions to the people that were making them; maybe he wanted to LIVE!

Instead, he should do what Rumsfeld says? This is getting beyond ridiculous. If there is any kind of God, this would be a good time for a litle help.

Olafr

[ewagner]

1. Lemme get this straignt

According to Miss Seymour:


"neither the staff nor the members of the or are cleared to receive the information covered by the special access programs, or SAPs."

So that means there can be no congressional oversight of the programs?

So that means there can be no Judicial oversight of the programs?

This is TRULY an IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

[LibertyLover]

2. I almost drove off the road this morning

when I heard this little tidbit on all-news radio station I was listening to. While I rarely talk back to the radio when I'm driving, much preferring to comment verbally on the driving skills (or lack thereof) and bumper stickers of the cars I'm sharing the road with, I made an exception for this bit of insanity. If I receall correctly, my comment was something along the lines of "WTF! They're sh*tting me. Those are are elected representatives - if they can't hear it, shut NSA down." This from a person who has friends working at NSA and drives by it on MD Rt. 32 several times a month.

[EFerrari]

3. I think we need a new campaign to mail Seymour

copies of the Constitution.

There can be no Imperial Residency without our consent. I don't know about you all, but I do not consent to this egregious buillsh!t.

[Nordmadr]

4. I just tried to do a search for Renee Seymour.

As one might expect from someone heading up super secret programs in the NSA, I couldn't really find anything.

I just wanted to reiterate that if these programs are outside of Congressional oversight then they appear ot be a program outside of the laws of this Nation. How is that possible? How can information at the least, not be available to Intelligence Committees of the COngress?

Is there also no oversight in the Courts?

You can't tell Congress what we (NSA)are doing? I must have a short circuit in my brain because this just does not compute.

Edit: I just wanted to add in that I am not naive and understand there are likely many programs that are hush hush to everyone, sort of "black ops". That thee programs exist disturbs me. That agency officials are confident enough to publicly acknowledge this, while trying to deter a whistleblower disturbs me even more. Sort of, "Yeah, we do this. Try and stop us." There was at least the understanding before that these types of things were illegal, and if discovered, would be shut down and there would be accountability. Now they just thumb their noses at us.

Olafr

[EFerrari]

5. It does in Bushworld. And they'll get away with anything

we allow them to do.

[Nordmadr]

6. Furthermore, even assuming that the law does not allow for

Congressional oversight of any kind in this matter; how can one argue following the law of secrecy, when someone is attempting to report illegal activity? Sort of a nice Catch-22 isn't it? We are breaking the law, but you can't report it because it is secret.

Making my head spin.

Olafr