Brad Wenstrup Second District, Ohio www.Wenstrup.House.Gov Committee on Armed Services Committee on Veterans' Affairs		1223 Longworth Building washington, d.c. 20515 (202) 225-3164 7954 Beechmont Avenue Suite 200 Cincinnati, Ohio 45255 (513) 474-7777 170 North Main Street Peebles, Ohio 45660 (513) 605-1380 4350 Aicholtz Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45245 (513) 605-1389
July 3, 2013
Dear Mr. Redstreak One, Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA) programs that attempt to identify and track terrorist communications. Your thoughts are important to me as I work to represent you effectively in Congress. As you know, Edward Snowden, an employee of consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, recently leaked classified information on the NSA PRISM program as well as a sealed court order allowing the NSA to collect the telephone records of U.S. Verizon customers. Like you, I am committed to upholding the right against unreasonable searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment. At the same time, I recognize that these programs are a vital part of keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks. As the recent bombing at the Boston Marathon reminds us, we remain very much at risk. While our intelligence agencies must make every effort to identify threats, I agree that these efforts must be kept within the limits of our Constitution. The PRISM program is restricted by federal law to the collection of intelligence information on foreign nationals. It cannot be used to target a U.S. citizen or even any person located within the United States. The NSA has also emphasized that it does not "unilaterally obtain information" from internet service providers. All data collection must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, must occur with the knowledge of the service provider, and must receive written authorization from the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General. The House Committees on Intelligence and Judiciary also perform oversight of the program. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order required Verizon to provide the NSA with call detail records for a three-month period ending on July 17, 2013. It is important to note that the court order is not authorizing access to the content of phone calls; it is allowing the tracking of data, including the number initiating the call, the location of the callers, and the length of the call. The Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that, because a caller voluntarily shares the number dialed with the phone company for business purposes, the reasonable expectation of privacy protected in the Fourth Amendment does not apply to phone number data. The NSA uses this data to prevent terrorist attacks by identifying a terrorist's network of relationships. Preventing attacks often requires our intelligence agencies to connect individual data points on a massive scale. Failure to "connect the dots" was one of the major intelligence lapses leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has credited the NSA data collection program with thwarting Najibullah Zazi's 2009 attempt to detonate homemade bombs in a New York subway station. According to reports, the FBI began to monitor Zazi after he sent an email to a known al-Qaeda account that was being watched by the FBI. The NSA program enabled the FBI to prevent one of the most serious terrorist plots since the September 11 attacks. As your Representative, I will ensure that the Constitution is my fundamental guide for determining the appropriate balance between security and privacy. I will continue to monitor this issue closely and will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation on counterterrorism efforts and data collection come before the full House of Representatives. Again, thank you for contacting me on this issue. I invite you to visit my website, [url]http://www.wenstrup.house.gov[/URL], where you can email me your thoughts or concerns on this or any other issue important to you, and sign up for my regular email updates.
Sincerely, Brad Wenstrup Member of Congress

I not sure but I got the same letter from Socialist Brown

Basically the same canned response you'll get from any of our fine upstanding, looking-out-for-us-all-the-time "leaders" on Crapitol Hill.

believer;1468987 wrote:Basically the same canned response you'll get from any of our fine upstanding, looking-out-for-us-all-the-time "leaders" on Crapitol Hill.

Yep. Nothing more than a facade that your rep is actually listening to and considering your concerns. It's interesting that the Dem/Repub canned response are that similar though. But I guess on this issue they are fairly unified.

Actually it's quite expected. I have a hunch that congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle met, came up with an agreed upon response, and disseminated it to all the reps and senators.

They may be unified on the issue and in some respects I actually understand it, but it's still a bit unnerving to me that the Feds are that deep into spying on our personal affairs regardless of real or imagined national security issues.

Frankly I trust the Feds about as much as I trust the terrorists.

While I look at this presently as benign toward the common citizen...we are on a very slippery slope.

HitsRus;1469030 wrote:While I look at this presently as benign toward the common citizen...we are on a very slippery slope.

I think this information could be (and likely already is) used to attack and marginalize political opponents, even if indirectly. Sure, that's probably always been done to various degrees, but now we're talking about an unrivaled ability to dredge up someone's past that only extreme surveillance in real-time could have yielded. And the way that is/will affect the political landscape is hardly benign to the citizens.

gut;1469110 wrote:I think this information could be (and likely already is) used to attack and marginalize political opponents, even if indirectly. Sure, that's probably always been done to various degrees, but now we're talking about an unrivaled ability to dredge up someone's past that only extreme surveillance in real-time could have yielded. And the way that is/will affect the political landscape is hardly benign to the citizens.

All quite true. The Feds (and I'm talking Dems & Repubs alike) would have us believe that the wealth of information they can now glean almost instantly from a multitude of digital sources is being used largely for national security purposes. While that might be true to an extent the more plausible purpose is, as you've stated, to find dirt on political enemies.

The IRS targeting conservative groups, for example, is precisely the kind of abuse the citizens should fear.

HitsRus;1469030 wrote:While I look at this presently as benign toward the common citizen...we are on a very slippery slope.

Ex-STASI Lt. Col. says the NSA program would have been a dream come true for them.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/15920-nsa-surveillance-disclosures-recall-days-of-east-german-stasi

J Edgar Hoover is rolling over in his grave missing out on this piece of work! lol Imagine what and who he could have blackmailed and manipulated with all of this information.

gut;1469110 wrote:I think this information could be (and likely already is) used to attack and marginalize political opponents, even if indirectly. Sure, that's probably always been done to various degrees, but now we're talking about an unrivaled ability to dredge up someone's past that only extreme surveillance in real-time could have yielded. And the way that is/will affect the political landscape is hardly benign to the citizens.

The MIT immersion project gives you an example of what the NSA can know from the metadata of your email. Just based on the evidence so far I think your theories are pretty firmly grounded in the conspiracy camp.

Take a look for yourself.

http://immersion.media.mit.edu/

All in all this whole ordeal should turn out to be positive in the end as we can get more checks and balances on the National Security State at the very least and maybe even a repeal of the Patriot Act.

BoatShoes;1469201 wrote:Just based on the evidence so far I think your theories are pretty firmly grounded in the conspiracy camp.

You're making assumptions about what the govt is actually collecting, assumptions based on trusting what they tell us that history has proven wrong time and again.

There was some former CIA or FBI that was saying during the Boston bombings that they had the ability to reconstruct past telephone calls in their entirety.

Also, go educate yourself on Project Narwhal. It's been called the most comprehensive and broad personal database in history, and many cite it as critical to Obama winning re-election. Most of what the Obama camp didn't collect itself is legally for sale. Then ask yourself what additional information the govt might compel companies to disclose.

You're calling me a conspiracy theorist. I say you are willfully naive on this matter. You're also such a kool-aid drinker that you think the criticism here is more about Obama than the govt as a whole. Everyone else in this thread recognizes the potential and likelihood for abuse regardless of what party is in control.

gut;1469691 wrote: There was some former CIA or FBI that was saying during the Boston bombings that they had the ability to reconstruct past telephone calls in their entirety.

they can reconstruct call history and location of the calls etc, not content.

believer;1469131 wrote:
The IRS targeting conservative groups, for example, is precisely the kind of abuse the citizens should fear.

Not to turn this into an IRS topic, but the IRS investigating a group of people who dont like paying taxes shouldnt exactly be that outragious. i mean, do you think the DEA is wrong for targeting mexican cartels and not a women's book club?

Glory Days;1469701 wrote:Not to turn this into an IRS topic, but the IRS investigating a group of people who dont like paying taxes shouldnt exactly be that outragious. i mean, do you think the DEA is wrong for targeting mexican cartels and not a women's book club?

Ummm, what evidence is there that the TEA Party cheats on its taxes more than others? I'm not sure I'd agree they don't like paying taxes - they think taxes are too high. Very distinct difference, and unless there's evidence of actual malfeasance they are being targeted purely for political beliefs.

Along those same lines, would you say NRA members deserve special scrutiny because they oppose newer/stricter gun laws? Should we raid their homes on suspicion that they are more likely to possess illegal firearms (purely because of their political position and not actual evidence of wrongdoing)?

gut;1469705 wrote:Ummm, what evidence is there that the TEA Party cheats on its taxes more than others? I'm not sure I'd agree they don't like paying taxes - they think taxes are too high. Very distinct difference, and unless there's evidence of actual malfeasance they are being targeted purely for political beliefs.

Along those same lines, would you say NRA members deserve special scrutiny because they oppose newer/stricter gun laws? Should we raid their homes on suspicion that they are more likely to possess illegal firearms (purely because of their political position and not actual evidence of wrongdoing)?

For the Kool Aid drinkers the answer would be a resounding "yes".

gut;1469691 wrote:You're making assumptions about what the govt is actually collecting, assumptions based on trusting what they tell us that history has proven wrong time and again.

There was some former CIA or FBI that was saying during the Boston bombings that they had the ability to reconstruct past telephone calls in their entirety.

Also, go educate yourself on Project Narwhal. It's been called the most comprehensive and broad personal database in history, and many cite it as critical to Obama winning re-election. Most of what the Obama camp didn't collect itself is legally for sale. Then ask yourself what additional information the govt might compel companies to disclose.

You're calling me a conspiracy theorist. I say you are willfully naive on this matter. You're also such a kool-aid drinker that you think the criticism here is more about Obama than the govt as a whole. Everyone else in this thread recognizes the potential and likelihood for abuse regardless of what party is in control.

Sigh, you keep calling me a kool-aid drinker but I've routinely criticized Obama...on this issue and several others. You're saying I'm being naive but I'm just going by available evidence. Thus far, all of these so-called scandals have fallen short once the evidence is brought to bear. It is not naive to wait for evidence before bold assertions such as those you're making.

Glory Days;1469701 wrote:Not to turn this into an IRS topic, but the IRS investigating a group of people who dont like paying taxes shouldnt exactly be that outragious. i mean, do you think the DEA is wrong for targeting mexican cartels and not a women's book club?

But see, that didn't happen. The outrage and everything the media reported on this ended up to be wrong. The IRS tagged certain words, including words associated with liberal-ish/pro-taxation positions for extra scrutiny but the Congressional Oversight Committee solely instructed the IG to investigate such behavior with regard to anti-tax type tea party groups and then deliberately failed to reveal this information to the public as well as testimony that undermined their created narrative that this was some kind concerted effort against anti-tax groups. The only groups that actually had their tax-exempt status denied were liberal groups and the White House had nothing to do with it.

This was all a fiction but it has had real consequences by flaming distrust in government and derailing the political discussion from important things and riling up conservatives against Obummer.

gut;1469705 wrote:Ummm, what evidence is there that the TEA Party cheats on its taxes more than others? I'm not sure I'd agree they don't like paying taxes - they think taxes are too high. Very distinct difference, and unless there's evidence of actual malfeasance they are being targeted purely for political beliefs.

Along those same lines, would you say NRA members deserve special scrutiny because they oppose newer/stricter gun laws? Should we raid their homes on suspicion that they are more likely to possess illegal firearms (purely because of their political position and not actual evidence of wrongdoing)?

They were not being targeted by there political beliefs. Sorry. This is why you wait to rely on evidence before you jump to the wild conspiracy theories that you're dreaming up.

BoatShoes;1469740 wrote:They were not being targeted by there political beliefs.

For alleged tax evasion then? Apparently liberal groups who tax evade are exempt from IRS scrutiny. Or only conservative groups are tax evaders.

BoatShoes;1469740 wrote:This is why you wait to rely on evidence before you jump to the wild conspiracy theories that you're dreaming up.

You mean like "vast right-wing conspiracies"?

BoatShoes;1469740 wrote:They were not being targeted by there political beliefs.

Then on what basis were they singled out?

Zimmerman's Defense team, and every other defense team should take note..When there is evidence against you, have your attorney call the witnesses "truthers" or "Conspiracy theorists" - The jury will get freaked out by these terms and the plaintiff will lose all credibility and be forced to wear a tin foil hat on out the door. Case Closed.

Best way to control a democracy I've ever seen. Person who discovers evidence.. "Ugh, you guys are being corrrupt" Defendent....."WHAT? YOU ARE A TRUTHER!?" Public "Hey Truther you are a tin foil hat person!, this is America! Obama! No Bush! No Obama!!"

gut;1469972 wrote:Then on what basis were they singled out?

They don't like Barry-flavored Kool Aid?

PAPER: NSA collecting data from billions of calls, e-mails in Latin America...

'Commercial secrets'...

Stirs tension...

Phone companies cash in on surveillance...

Hentoff: Put Obama on witness stand... [HR][/HR]Privacy fears grow as Obama weighs expanded gun-buyer database...

gut;1469972 wrote:Then on what basis were they singled out?

The IRS had a "Be on the lookout list" for certain words in the mission statements/names in 501(c)(4) applications and the words on the list went well beyond just words like "Tea Party" normally associated with conservative groups including words like "progressive" and "social change" and "open source" and "social change"

This was the justification given for the BOLO:

"applications may be inflammatory, advocate a one-sided point of view, and promotional materials may signify propaganda."

Open-Source Software groups appeared to get it the worst because the IRS thought they were shams/money-making enterprises.

A recent I.R.S. "be on the lookout" list warned screeners that such software groups "are usually the for-profit business or for-profit support technicians of the software."

There was no singling out of consevative groups at all. All kinds of groups received probably inappropriate flagging and screening. In fact it was the audit itself that was orchestrated by Darrell Issa and Co. that only focused on the scrutinizing of Conservative groups with words like "Tea Party" and "9/12" in their names, purposefully ignoring any inappropriate criteria used for evaluating tax-exempt status for other groups per the terms of the audit request.


And of course, Darrell Issa refused to release testimony that revealed all this. It doesn't matter though because they succeeded in creating the environment of scandal that the Obama-haters eagerly swallowed. #Benghazi, #IRS, are just assorted truths in talk radio land now. It's like #Haliburton to liberals.