[chatmasta]

If the NSA publicized all its internal decision making processes, it would interfere with its own job.

Should any American citizen expect detailed documentation on the intelligence apparatus operating within the NSA? Wouldn't such disclosure jeopardize ongoing operations? The NSA has no obligation to reveal anything more about its operations than federal law requires it to. The legislative branch has the responsibility of enforcing any requirements placed upon the NSA.

The legislative branch is responsible for checking the power of the executive branch, which includes the NSA. That is why congress regulates its operations, and enforces the regulations with specialized committees.

Unfortunately, even if congress can tightly regulate the NSA, it cannot publicly enforce its regulations. Public enforcement would jeopardize ongoing operations within the NSA. If Congress limited its regulations to only those that it could publicly enforce, then it would restrict the scope of the regulations, making it impossible to properly check the power of the NSA.

Given the catch-22 of asking congress to regulate the NSA, but in a publicly provable manner, we are left with two choices: sacrifice the intelligence apparatus altogether, or continue funding it while trusting the regulatory power of congress.

Ultimately the power of the NSA depends on the power of its overseers on the intelligence committee. A powerful group of senators and congressmen could enforce regulations on the NSA.

The challenge is finding trustworthy congressmen, who are capable of regulating the NSA. Americans should really stop worrying about the behavior of the NSA, and start worrying about electing the right congressmen to ensure the NSA is operating for the best interest of the American people.

[admax88q]

> The NSA has no obligation to reveal anything more about its operations than federal law requires it to.

You're starting from the assumption that current federal laws are moral and just.

It's a tautology to say "they are [legally] obligated to do what they're legally obligated to do" No one would disagree with you on that. The point of the discussion and debate is about what they _should_ be legally obligated to do.

[spacab]

The problem is that since the dawn of our Republic when our current system of checks and balances was put into place, the intelligence apparatus has grown much larger and more powerful than I think anybody really could have ever expected. And because of their secrecy and vagueness, it has become impossible to actually get a sense of the real benefit of our intelligence operation.

If it's a choice between the unknown benefit/cost of compromising the NSA's operations (through greater transparency) and the current situation (our civil liberties being threatened more and more every day), I would choose the former.

The system of accountability is completely outdated and unbalanced in favor of the intelligence apparatus.

[rhizome]

If the NSA publicized all its internal decision making processes, it would interfere with its own job.

Should any...

sacrifice...altogether

and so on...

False Dilemmas across the board, utterly without nuance. Sprinkle in some, "Welp, that's the law!" nihilism (or complicity) to taste.

[zipwitch]

There is no evidence that the NSA is any good at its job. It ought to be eliminated. This is an easy decision, because its programs or odious or undemocratic, but because it is a useless waste of taxpayer money.

[aburan28]

The Information Assurance Directorate is good at it's job, surely they shouldn't be eliminated