Jennifer Hoelzer 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (22)

• On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2014 @ 05:15pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  A smart person once told me that people express cynicism to make themselves sound smart on a subject. The idea being that you've got to know an awful lot about a subject to say something positive about it, but you don't need to know very much to express cynicism.
  
  That said, I know there is a lot to be angry and cynical about here, but as someone who's been working on these issues for years, let me tell you: This report is a very important step w/out which none of the things you want would be possible.
  
  Leaving aside the fact that producing this "small step" required a team of people to spend tens of thousands of hours combing through more than 6 million documents, not to mention what it takes to write a several thousand page report...and then a year, plus a head-on confrontation with the CIA and the White House to get it made public, prior to the release of this report, those of us in government and out who wanted to push for any sort of change or steps to be taken against these guys had zero ammunition. We could talk about feelings and hunches, but there were no hard facts to point to, nothing we could hold up to say Cheney and Hayden are lying. Hell, we didn't even have enough facts on our side (at least that we could point to) to discredit Zero Dark Thirty, let alone prosecute anyone.
  
  The reason Cheney et al have gotten away with this for as long as they have is that they've controlled the facts. They knew that it's next to impossible for anyone outside of the intelligence community to get something they've stamped classified unclassified. (Look at the legal rulings w/ re: to our attempts to force the declassification of FISC rulings pertaining to NSA data collection - the administration fought our argument that it's a misuse of the classification system to classify legal documents by arguing that since the intelligence community determines what is and is not a proper use of the classification system, then anything the IC classifies must be properly classified....and the court, of course, agreed.)
  
  Anyway, the torture debate we've had the last 13+ years is the torture debate you get when the only facts anyone could publicly point to were the ones put out by those defending torture at the CIA. So, instead of throwing in the towel or simply moving on to other things (as basically everyone else did), the staff of the senate intelligence committee spent five years putting together an airtight, fact-based report discrediting anyone who dares to claim this program did anything but harm our nation's national security. I'm not saying anyone will get prosecuted, but this report is the thing that makes prosecution possible. More importantly, though, in my mind, this report is what gets held up the next time someone suggests we should torture someone. It's also what gets held up the next time the CIA says "just trust us."
  
  I'm sorry that the response hasn't been fast or big enough for you, trust me, I know how frustrating it can be, but if you care about this issue as much as you say you do, stop whining about the people who've been killing themselves to do something about it, take the report they wrote and demand change. Write your members of congress, write the justice department, write the president tell them you want/expect action. You may not think they'll pay attention, but i promise you they're a lot more likely to pay attention to a letter you send them than your comments on Techdirt. Beyond that, use your voice. When you see people like Cheney and Hayden lying call them out on it, post links to the report in your comments, organize a boycott of Meet the Press sponsors the next time they book Mike Hayden or write the ombudsman at the New York Times the next time you see Cheney's comments published as fact....
  
  Again, if you want action to be taken here stop complaining that the people on your side aren't working to your satisfaction and HELP them. An elected official is only as powerful as the army he/she has behind him. Either get on board and be part of that army or thank the folks who are out there working for the change you'd like to see, but aren't trying to bring about yourself.
  
  As I said, thank you letters can be addressed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 211 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

• On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2014 @ 03:48pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm, no, It's not.

  Thank you.
  
  I think "not torturing' people is one of those principles, but free speech would probably be the best example. It's such a ubiquitous part of our identity as Americans that we pretty much take it for granted, but - to my point - when an action is proposed or taken that would limit free speech, we tend to refer to it as "un-American." Regardless, I stand by my statement that the United States is more than a geographically defined landmass.

• On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2014 @ 03:48pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm, no, It's not.

  Thank you.
  
  I think "not torturing' people is one of those principles, but free speech would probably be the best example. It's such a ubiquitous part of our identity as Americans that we pretty much take it for granted, but - to my point - when an action is proposed or taken that would limit free speech, we tend to refer to it as "un-American." Regardless, I stand by my statement that the United States is more than a geographically defined landmass.

• On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2014 @ 09:39am

  Re:

  I was talking about the IC's direct attempts to control the message/understanding of their activities: whether it was giving half truths/only sharing one side of the story with Congress & the White House to convincing the creators of Zero Dark Thirty that torture led to the capture of UBL to ultimately shaping how the American people understand what their government is doing. I didn't order them that way as a hierarchy. (As a literary device, I actually tend to put the most important last, because the last gets word in a sentence gets the most attention/focus.) But here, I was thinking more about the sequence of attention the CIA gave each of these groups and while they were trying to shape public perceptions, they didn't really talk directly to the American people (unless they were talking through the media or Hollywood.) But really, I included Hollywood in there because i'm still ticked about Zero Dark Thirty.... (yes, i know this is a ridiculously ramblely answer, but I don't have time this AM to edit. Have a great day.)

• On the post: An Inside View On The Purpose And Implications Of The Torture Report

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2014 @ 06:21pm

  Re:

  So, when i first heard that only the exec summary of the report was going to be made public, i was more than a little disappointed. But now seeing what the committee staff did, I'm kind of blown away by how smart and strategic they were. First off, you'e got to remember that whatever they wrote they needed the exec branch to declassify it (only the exec branch has classification authorities) and they had to assume they were only going to get the admin to agree to a partial declassification to start. So, what did they do? They wrote a 500+ page exec summary, laying out all of their findings, with evidence and very minimal references to information that would need to be redacted. (In other words this exec summary was written to be made public and back the admin into a corner to do it. Brilliant.)
  
  Yes, I think the rest of the report will likely - someday - be made public, but I think Sen Feinstein makes a good argument in her introduction that they knew it would be such a fight to get this declassified (and it was) that they decided to start with this and push for the declassification of the rest at a later day. But again, what they forced the CIA to declassify is very solid and very informative.
  
  Drones will obviously be a much harder sell. Again, the exec branch are the only ones with the power to declassify, and unlike the detention and interrogation programs, the drone program is ongoing. That said, though, the more it becomes clear that the CIA's abuse of its power to keep things secret is leading to a lack of public trust, the more pressure they'll face to be forthcoming. (I think the last 2 years have been a seachange for the intel community in terms of the ability to hide behind secrecy and it will be interested to see where this leads. Would be nice if it was someplace good.)

• On the post: Health Experts Issue Call To Prevent ICANN's Commercialization Of New .health Domain Leading To Exclusive Control Of Online Health Information

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2014 @ 09:48am

  Re: Re: Re: Do people actually pay attention to TLDs in this way?

  Yes, I would argue that the folks who will be most vulnerable to this will most likely be senior citizens, who are the least tech savvy and the biggest consumers of health care. I mean, these scam sites wouldn't invest in this stuff if they weren't making money off of them, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that someone's getting scammed.
  
  I'd also argue that the threat here isn't just scam sites looking for ways to cheat your grandparents out of their life savings (although those folks definitely exist), you're also dealing with a multi-billion health care industry that is already out there paying doctors millions to recommend their treatments over others. This is just an educated guess, but I'll bet good money that you're going to see major pharmaceutical companies and/or medical device company's buying up the TLDs associated with the diseases they treat. e.g. juvenilediabetes.health and then they'll invest a million (which is no skin off their nose) to make it the best resource for the disease out there. It won't just be informative, it will be useful. You'll be able to chat online with a doctor and find support on message boards, read inspirational stories and learn strategies for educating your kid on the disease. It will be so great that it will become the go-to site for any family fighting the disease. The only problem with the site will be their treatment recommendations. They're not dumb, they won't recommend their products for everyone, just almost everyone. They also won't publish the downsides of their medications or any adverse effects of their medication, which yes, parents can find on other sites, but they won't look for that information until/unless something goes wrong. Yes, ideally, doctors wouldn't prescribe medication just because a patient asks for it, but if that was the case, why do pharmaceuticals advertise so extensively? (Also these companies market to doctors so these would just be an extension of those efforts.)
  
  I'm not saying my #2 (which I thought up in 30 seconds as I typed that response) is the answer. Although I do think a health wiki that you accessed simply by typing diseasename.health (vs. having to go through an entire wiki site would be helpful) but I do think its worth thinking through what the opportunity cost is here of not taking this opportunity to set up incentives to populate the Internet with useful, unbiased health information for patients versus giving for-profit health interests an unending stream of avenues to market themselves. Again, I'm not suggesting that I have the answer or that the answer is easy, only that it's a problem that we should be looking for ways to address.

• On the post: Health Experts Issue Call To Prevent ICANN's Commercialization Of New .health Domain Leading To Exclusive Control Of Online Health Information

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2014 @ 07:32pm

  Re: Do people actually pay attention to TLDs in this way?

  The issue is that the policies shaping the future of the Internet are increasingly being made by for profit corporations & interests while the rest of us get shut out of the process (and might not even know there was a process if not for Techdirt.)
  
  You're saying this shouldn't be an issue because it doesn't personally impact you is a little like my saying, I don't see why I should care about Net Neutrality since I only use the Internet for Facebook (I don't) or I don't care if the government is collecting my geolocation records because I don't go anywhere interesting.
  
  Every time corporate or special interests co-opt a piece of the Internet's future for their own purposes, the Internet takes another step towards becoming an instrument for the few versus a platform for the many. And I think that's reason enough to oppose it.
  
  Beyond that, there are reasons you should care:
  
  1. Not everyone who uses the Internet is as savvy as you and the more for profit health providers are able to control the flow of information to (at least some) patients -- recommending pricey treatments and medications that patients might not need -- the more health care costs go up. Sky rocketing health care costs hurt everyone in the form of increased taxes and/or loss of government services, the availability of treatments and your employer's ability to raise your wages among many other things.
  
  2. Opportunity Cost. Yes, you have a way to avoid the negative consequences of .health being purchased by a for profit spammer, but might you have benefitted from .health being used for a different purpose? Like...what if -- for example -- instead of selling .health to the highest bidder, ICANN granted it to a non-profit to turn it into a global health care wiki that would gather the collective wisdom and experience of doctors and health care experts around the world. Thus giving you immediate access to unbiased information and making it harder for pharma and other for profit actors in the health care sphere to control the flow of information re: their products, hide adverse effects, studies, etc....
  
  ICANN is shaping the future of the Internet and steps like this not only take the Internet in the wrong direction, they mean we're forgoing an opportunity to take the Internet in a positive direction.

• On the post: DC Circuit Court Tells District Officials They Can No Longer Hide From FOIA Requests By Using Personal Email Accounts

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 10:54am

  Don't Let These Idiots Defame All Public Servants

  My friends who had FOIA-able federal government jobs knew -- and were always very careful -- not to send anything work related to or from their personal email accounts. They'd even set up separate work-only gmail accounts if they needed to send themselves documents to work on from home. (It's easier to work from gmail at home than remotely access your government email.) Because they knew that the second a work-related email touched their personal email account, the whole thing would become FOIA-able. I was basically put on notice that unless I wanted our long history of emails about happy hours and Lebron on the public record all work-related emails needed to be directed to their government account.
  
  If those people really thought they were going to get away with this, they're idiots.

• On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2014 @ 03:24pm

  Re: Lobbyists are necessary

  With all due respect, sir, I worked on Capitol Hill for 10 years, the White House for 2 and I have a masters degree in public policy from Harvard. I've been subjected to so much spin in my life that I can spot it at 100 paces blindfolded. I wouldn't be a very good communications strategist if I only read/considered issues from one perspective. Unlike some who's strategy for winning debates is to silence their opposition, I actually work to understand the opposition's side, so I can understand their thinking, address their concerns and counter their arguments (and maybe change their minds.)
  
  Maybe it's not the textbook definition, but I define "public advocate" as someone who advocates for interests beyond their own. I'm not saying those people won't benefit from their advocacy (most public interest advocates got involved because of a personal experience) but that they're thinking of others, the future, etc. not just how to protect/grow themselves financially at the expense of the interests of others.. Techdirt continued its SOPA/PIPA advocacy even when it hurt them financially. And -- as I said -- that's the problem with public advocacy. While a special interest lobbyists could be making high six figures to devote themselves to making sure members of Congress understand their client's interests, most people who advocate for the public interest do it on their own time, for free. I don't know about you, but I think if we want to fix society/congress, etc. we need to find a way to make doing good just as profitable as screwing people. (Or at least a little profitable.)
  
  Also - for the record - as I tried to explain in my post, Members of Congress and their staff are more likely to take a stand on an issue when they are confident in their knowledge of an issue. I might know that a lobbyist is spinning me, but I'm probably not going to pick a fight with them publicly unless I know enough about the issue to debate them. And - as I tried to explain -- there is so much going on that, you, as a staffer, might say to yourself. "When I get some time, I'm going to research that issue," but then you get so busy that 6 months later, you're like "shoot, I really wanted to learn about that, but now the debates over." I loved Techdirt because it gave me the user perspective on tech issues, that wasn't being represented in Washington, in an easily digestible and understood way. Understanding the issue made it possible for me to jump on communication opportunities in real time vs. backburnering them until I could learn more.
  
  Again, that's why I'm giving to Techdirt and I hope others will too.

• On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2014 @ 12:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I don't take it personally. (Heck, I no longer work in Congress.) But there are a lot of people like me who work there, including pretty much everyone in Senator Wyden's office. The problem is the system does nothing to keep them those people there. The quality of life is pretty awful. The work isn't exactly fulfilling -- the bills you slave to write/negotiate get blown up to score political points -- and the media don't think you're worth covering. For years, I made it my personal mission to get the media to cover smart, bipartisan policy ideas (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2011-10-20/ron-wyden-senator-from-planet-where-congress-works-ezra-klein) but the spotlight almost always goes to those who are doing the opposite of being constructive.
  
  I don't know how to fix it, other than we have to find a way to fix the incentives.

• On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2014 @ 11:52am

  Re:

  The pay sucks, the hours are brutal, (you basically eat, sleep and breath work) and everyone hates you. And you're right, the only people who really benefit when you start cutting Congressional staff pay are the lobbyists. It's a lot easier for them to convince a fresh faced staffer who makes $40K a year that they're right than someone who's been working on the issue for a decade or two.

• On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2014 @ 11:46am

  Re: Re:

  Two days before the Jan. 2012 Internet protest, I had a reporter ask me why our office was fighting SOPA/PIPA so hard because "Won't it be embarrassing when you guys lose."
  
  As Ron Wyden once told me, "the right thing to do may not have much of a chance, but it has zero chance if no one fights for it."

• On the post: No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2014 @ 12:12pm

  You know, we've long been afraid that computers would rise to dominance by growing smarter than humans, but I'm starting to wonder if the computers' real plan is simply to best humans by making us dumber.
  
  i.e. Could the growing obsession with clicks and nonfactual clickbait stories (about things like "super computers" passing the Turing test) just be evidence that their trojan horse is working on us? A few more years of this and a TI-81 could take over the planet.

• On the post: The NSA Didn't Actually Address All Of The FISA Court's Concerns, Contrary To What It Claims

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2013 @ 12:34pm

  Re:

  I know the man brings up strong feelings. As I said, there are a lot of reasons to be mad at him/disagree with him. Trust me, I'm there.
  
  But if we want things to change, making the Intel community out to be the enemy isn't going to work. It just confirms their opinion of their critics and convinces them they are right about everything including shutting the public out of these debates. (Which is why I'm trying to keep my commentary fact-based.) I mean, at the end of the day, Congress and the White House can mandate legislative reforms, but nothing changes if we can't get the Intel Community to buy in.
  
  These guys think they are patriots trying to keep us safe. We need to get them to see that there are better ways to be patriotic and keep the country safe. That good intentions don't necessarily lead to good decisions.

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2013 @ 03:08pm

  Re: Re: Re: Wowsa!

  I think President Obama's proposed reforms are a huge step in the right direction. I deserves credit for taking those steps and I commend him for doing it. Although I am troubled that they don't include closing the section 702 loophole, which is is a big enough subject for its own post.
  
  I think one of the challenges with this debate is that it encompasses so many issues. i.e. most folks in this debate are actually debating different things. For example, I think each of the following are separate issues:
  
  1.The programs themselves: Are these surveillance programs making our country safer/less safe and/or are there better ways to keep our country safe? So they strike the proper balance between national security and privacy? are they working as well as they could -- i.e. is information being shared, etc.
  2. Legality: Does the administration - in fact - have the authority to conduct these programs. They obviously think they do, but do they and is their argument constitutional? How is this data collection not represent the kind of general warrants the founders deliberately wanted to prohibit?
  3. Democracy - In a democratic society, the people are supposed to have a say in the laws that govern them, were they given a say here? Why not? Did the Administration have a good national security reason for denying the American people the information they needed to judge their leaders' actions on this issue or were they just afraid if the public found out what it was doing, they would take away some of their authority? Is the latter a good reason to classify information.
  4. Classification/Leaks - Is our classification system working? Is information only being classified for national security reasons or is some of the information being declassified for reasons such as -- avoiding oversight and potential embarrassment? Is given the executive branch the sole authority to determine what is/is not classified working? Is cracking down on leakers the best way to protect national secrets?
  5. Edward Snowden - Did he do the right thing? Is he a whistleblower or something else? Could we be having the debate we are currently having without him? Is the administration's treating him unfairly?
  
  There are obviously other questions, but I laid these out to give you an idea just how diverse this topic is and that just because folks have an opinion on one aspect of the debate doesn't mean that they are on one side or the other because there are many, many sides. In other words, you can have concerns about the lack of oversight and still care about national security. You can have concerns about these programs and also have concerns about the way the information was disclosed. etc . etc. etc.
  
  Anyway, I am VERY glad the President is taking this issue seriously and putting some excellent reform proposals on the table. Having worked for many of those reforms for many years, I commend him for taking those actions. But that doesn't mean I'm not still concerned about his administration's commitment to oversight and democracy and what I see as an irresponsible classification system that I would argue makes our country less safe by fostering disrespect for the classification system. Based on this Administration's previous actions and statements on those fronts, I have no reason to believe that they will continue to circumvent the democratic process when it is most convenient for them,

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2013 @ 02:32pm

  Re: Filibuster?

  He did filibuster the reauthorizations. He forced the Patriot Act to the floor for a vote and put a "hold" on both efforts to reauthorize FAA. You can find his hold announcement here: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-places-hold-on-fisa-amendments-act-extension
  
  In fact he was such a pain-in-the neck, that the Senate had to reconvene 2 days after Christmas this past year to override his hold on FAA. You can find video of his hour+ speech here: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/video-and-audio/view/wyden-floor-statement-on-fisa-reauthorization-act-and-proposed-amendments
  
  But given that Wyden's ability to explain his objections were limited to vague hypotheticals, there were well over 60 votes to override his holds and end his filibuster.

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2013 @ 01:48pm

  Re: Re: Re: No free speech here on TD

  Just my two cents on this as someone who occasionally writes for online publications that allow comments.
  
  Negative -- or extremely hostile -- comments don't violate free speech, but I do think it acts as a disincentive. Let me explain:
  
  I can only speak for myself here, but when I take time to write posts like this one or ones I've done for my Huffington Post blog or even columns I wrote with Senator Wyden, I do it with the hope that I can help readers see the world differently or at least gain a better understanding of my point of view. I don't normally get paid for what I write and my writing has yet to drive any consulting clients my way. In fact, the above post probably ended my career in government communication consulting.
  
  Now, while I admittedly wrote the above post in a five hour blur of coffee and prosecco (between midnight and 5 AM), I have often spent days if not weeks trying to formulate an argument that I hope will resonate with readers. And, when you put that kind of work into a post, it's really hard to read eviscerating comments written by people who clearly didn't read what you wrote and just what to tear into you for the headline or what they assume to know about you based on whatever they think they know about you.
  
  If you don't believe me, check out the comments currently being written about my Techdirt post over at the Huffington Post. I could only read a few before I had to stop. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/11/jennifer-hoelzer-obama-nsa_n_3739639.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
  
  Anyway, when I read comments like those, I start to ask myself why I bothered to write the piece in the first place, which makes me less eager to write again in the future. As I said in the above piece, I respect -- and even cherish -- the right folks have to write whatever they want online. And -- having worked in positions where I couldn't use my name without it reflecting on my boss or job etc -- I respect the right to post anonymously or under psydonyms. But that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to have such words directed at me or something I've written and it has definitely discouraged me from participating in discussions.
  
  Anyway, I wish more folks would ask themselves -- before posting those comments -- whether what they are writing is something they would be proud to put their name on. But I think the system that Mike has set up here at Techdirt is brilliant. In that it not only allows the Techdirt community to set the tone for its discussions, it offers incentives for folks to provide insight and even humor. It's -- obviously -- a conversation that I am much more eager to engage in.
  
  (Btw. some sites -- even legitimate newspaper sites -- refuse to limit comments because they feel that giving crazy ranters a forum to rant, just drives traffic to their site. The fact that Techdirt cares more about driving constructive conversation to its site, versus a sheer volume of crazy is to be commended.)
  
  Again, just my two cents.

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2013 @ 11:33pm

  Re: Wowsa!

  Thank you for your kind words and encouragement, they mean a lot. And it was a real honor to work for Ron. He's the real deal.

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2013 @ 11:30pm

  Re:

  Wow! Edward R.Murrow? Best complement I have gotten in awhile. Thank you.

• On the post: Jennifer Hoelzer's Insider's View Of The Administration's Response To NSA Surveillance Leaks

  

  Jennifer Hoelzer ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2013 @ 11:27pm

  Re:

  There are repercussions. Note members of congress who have done this in the past did it as they were leaving Congress. Ron -- hopefully -- has many years ahead of him If he had revealed the classified data, he could have stayed in Congress, but would have lost his seat on the Intelligence Committee. And would no longer be in a position to raise objections/conduct oversight on future programs. Also, Wyden's staffer on the committee, who deserves a medal for the heroic work he has done on this issue over the last 7+ years, would have lost his job/clearance/career, etc. Anyway, I'd argue we need more folks like the two of them conducting oversight over intelligence programs not less.

Next >>