Everyone in US under surveillance incl Congress - NSA whistleblower

[Catherina]

'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower

This was broadcast on RT in Dec 2012.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'


RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

RT: And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…

WB: It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Bluffdale (database facility), because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it.

...

RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.

WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.

...

RT: Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during your work at the NSA.

WB: The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly 320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably close to 20 trillion over the years.

The original program that we put together to handle this to be able to identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in essence you would protect their identities and the information about them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.

...

http://rt.com/usa/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/


In 2012 Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.


This thread ties in very nicely with:
Senate Intel Committee Blocks Former Staffer From Talking To Press About Oversight Process but please watch out for the yellow snow.

[Autumn]

1. That explains a lot.

Their votes, the shift to where we are today. Blackmail?

[Catherina]

5. What else can we call it? If you snoop into a man's computer

(and yes they can and yes they DO connect to your computers and sniff around and grab whatever they want according to the former senior officials of the NSA who resigned when Bush implemented all that)

If you snoop into a Congressman's computer and find out he's got a very uncommon sexual fetish, how vigorously is that man going to speak out when he's asked to rubber stamp a war? Or a Congresswoman who had a past indiscretion?

One has to wonder also how many of our recent scandals became scandals. How certain *investigations* really started. Elliot Spitzer comes instantly to mind.

It's not really an *investigation* if they already know everything before they even start is it?

[KoKo]

11. Would explain (along with lobbyist influence) why our Congresscritters seem to

be so "lazy" these days. Also may be another reason why we have so few investigative reporters in the MSM anymore. The ability to use information for Blackmail and Compromise was one of the first things I thought of when we learned that our Internet Communications were an open book for exploitation.

If reporters know their phones are tapped on both ends then they learn extreme caution on what they can and cannot report. If our Congress Critters realize every conversation has been recorded it can lead to exploitation in many ways. Anyone remember during Bush II when the House Democrats had their computers hacked into and it was revealed that the Dems and Republicans were sharing the same servers in the Capitol? That's how innocent they were about the use of the internet.

They all know and have known for awhile that they were under surveillance but the extent to which it's grown (as the ability to access more an more information as internet usage has exploded) makes it all the more important that whistlerblowers inform the average citizen. It's not just the old spy stuff (bugging your phone) but "bugging" everything you do on your mobile phone and all your correspondence and interaction over the wires.

Mass usage of the internet is pretty recent. Those whose first experience with internet communications was "AOL.com" have no idea what is going on. They are older and their brains just aren't wired to think about how using the internet could be used maliciously or with intent to collect data for commercial, government or law enforcement use.

[Catherina]

16. You nailed it. And this is precisely what the professional weasels, whose paychecks depend

You nailed it. And this is precisely what the professional weasels, whose paychecks depend on keeping this from the public, want hidden. It's not national security they're worried about, it's their security.

This is why such an organized apoplectic fury has been unleashed on Edward Snowden, for warning us that our Republic was in grave danger.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

Some people here have mentioned Paul Revere in Snowden discussions and the full force of why they did so just hit me.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. Blackmail is one explanation. Another is that they can discover what it takes to buy the politician

Threats and sticks aren't always necessary.

Carrots also work.

[ReRe]

53. Yeah, otherwise known as the J. Edgar Hoover treatment. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

2. Kick.

[ProSense]

3. Proving again that Snowden doesn't know what he's talking about?

Who is wrong? I mean, even his believers doubt some of his claims.

I’ll admit from the start that the Snowden chat at the Guardian was a brilliant journalistic and technical feat. At the same time, it’s clear that Snowden is still closely following the news, and presumably shaping his answers for maximal political effect.

So I take this comment, the last words he spoke on the chat, with a grain of salt.

This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

Certainly, it would seem technically feasible to block all Verizon numbers associated with official Congressional communications devices. It would be far harder to block the abundant communications devices tied to campaign activity.

http://crooksandliars.com/emptywheel/edward-snowden-congress-has-immunity-sp

Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032903

[sabrina 1]

7. What is your point, seriously, I think I am missing it. So let me try.

I see your point that Binney's statement seems to contradict Snowden's. Binney says they are surveilling everyone, even members of Congress. Snowden says 'the NSA has given immunity to Congress'.

This is where I am confused by what point you are making. I find it chilling that the NSA has so much power, BECAUSE they can do what Binney claims, bribe Congress by telling them 'we won't spy on you'. IF they do 'what'?

In essence then both are saying that the NSA has the capability of spying even on Congress. There is no contradiction imo.

But you are pointing to Snowden's claims as, what? Seriously, I don't know. To show that Binney is right? But doesn't Snowden's claim confirm Binney's? And worse, confirm the reason WHY the NSA having these capabilities is so DANGEROUS. IF, and you seem to believe Snowden over Binney here (I could be wrong) Snowden is correct, then we are correct to be extremely concerned over this collection of data, domestically. They can use it as has been stated, for nefarious purposes. And what more nefarious purpose than to bribe Congress?

Who is the NSA to provide ANYTHIING to Congress, least of all, 'an immunity' from spying on them? That is truly frightening. But maybe you were agreeing with Binney and not Snowden, which means that they ARE spying on Congress?? I don't see where one is better than the other. I see both as directly connected to each other.

[ProSense]

10. "So I take this comment, the last words he spoke on the chat, with a grain of salt. "

That's from the post I linked to.

"What is your point, seriously, I think I am missing it. So let me try."

Point: Even his believers doubt some of his claims.

"But you are pointing to Snowden's claims as, what? Seriously, I don't know. To show that Binney is right? But doesn't Snowden's claim confirm Binney's? "

It appears you're the one who is confused, not me.

I mean, the post was straightforward. Your adding your own confusing twists and turns doesn't change that.

[sabrina 1]

12. I already said I was confused. By your comment. I'm not at all confused about the threats to

this country these domestic data gathering and storing polices pose.

Your response to my sincere inquiry as to what your point was:

Even his believers doubt some of his claims.

I don't know him from adam. Do you? I read what people say, and watch what they do politically to form opinions, political opinions.

Binney says that the NSA is spying even on Members of Congress. That if true, is chilling, isn't it? Unless you are blind to the possibilities of any government agency having that kind of power.

Snowden says the NSA gives immunity from spying to Congress.

You posted Snowden's comment to prove something, which you now say is 'even his believers doubt some of his claims'. I don't know any of his believers so that doesn't answer my question at all.

Are you saying they doubt that the NSA has given Congress immunity and that Binney is correct and that the NSA IS spying on Congress?

Because you used Snowden's comment, it now appears, to show how he contradicted Binney. So does that mean you believe Binney?

Do you see the confusion? Either you believe Binney or Snowden re how the NSA is using the data they have on Congress. But regardless of HOW they are using it, BOTH Binney AND Snowden are saying they DO HAVE DATA ON CONGRESS.

I don't know which is worse, the NSA just having it, as Binney says, or the NSA being in such a position of power over Congress they can 'grant immunity' to our government from their spying. Not much difference imo. The POTENTIAL is the problem. Unless you don't believe either of them.

[ProSense]

13. No,

"Do you see the confusion? Either you believe Binney or Snowden re how the NSA is using the data they have on Congress. But regardless of HOW they are using it, BOTH Binney AND Snowden are saying they DO HAVE DATA ON CONGRESS."

...you're making a lot of assumptions to justify the conflict between the two statements. Snowden specifically stated that Congress has "special immunity to its surveillance."


NSA veteran: "So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550

[sabrina 1]

14. Well you still haven't said whether you believe Snowden or Binney. I will assume you believe

Binney then?

[ProSense]

15. Who do you believe?

I mean, you launch into a confusing response, and then try to claim both statements are the same, and now you're asking:

"Well you still haven't said whether you believe Snowden or Binney. I will assume you believe, Binney then?"

The Binney interview is from December 2012. I still say he is speaking from his experience as someone who blew the whistle on Bush's illegal wiretapping. Bush was actuall spying on everyone, including U.S. troops overseas. Snowden's claims are about activities under the Obama administration, but that still doesn't make his claim technically feasible.

Who do you believe?

[sabrina 1]

17. So you believe Binney then? But both are saying the same thing, so that means you must

believe Snowden also. Binney didn't just expose Bush's surveillance, he has stated repeatedly that it 'has not stopped'. Do you only support him when Bush was president or do you think he's lying NOW?

I believe both of them because they are both saying the same thing. We have a massive Domestic Surveillance program ongoing in this country which is against the law.

What I can't have an opinion on is whether either one is right about HOW the data is being used.

I don't know whether the NSA is 'granting immunity to Congress' or whether they are holding on to the data they have on Congress. But, I know that if they have data on Congress they COULD use it bribe them, couldn't they? And Binney with whom you agree, says they DO have it.

So since we've established that you agree with Binney, that the NSA has data on Congress, do you think that is okay? That a Govt Agency, a spy agency, should have data on members of Congress, their phone data, who they call, what times etc?

[ProSense]

19. Are you intentionally not making sense? n/t

[sibelian]

60. "YOU MAKE NO SENSE!"

linky linky linky

[magellan]

24. You're wasting your time on this one

She'll never see what she doesn't want to, and never answer a point blank question that would incriminate her.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Exactly right.

[RevStPatrick]

44. "It is difficult to get a (wo)man...

...to understand something, when (her) salary depends upon (her) not understanding it!"

Upton Sinclair - 1935

[magellan]

47. +1

You nailed it.

[ReRe]

56. Twisted Upton Sinclair's words right into a nice little sexist rant, didn't you?

We like quotes around here. Would you mind very much telling where that original quote was in his writings? I would like to know the context in which the quote appeared. Thanks.

[RevStPatrick]

64. That had nothing to do with sexism.

I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935), ISBN 0-520-08198-6; repr. University of California Press, 1994, p. 109.

[ReRe]

67. Thank you very very much for the source!

Well, I thought, since you changed all the "hes and him's" into "shes and hers," that that was your intent. If sexism was not your intent, exactly what WAS your intent?

[zeemike]

34. Don't worry...they can run you around in circles

forever...And you will never pin them down.
I have seen this over and over...

[ucrdem]

21. Thanks ProSense. Beautifully made case.

I guess it's going to be another day of intellectually dishonest posts by members who really ought to know better, sigh. Clearly your message is needed. Thanks for doing all you do. We got your back!

[sabrina 1]

37. Well, we DUers who you so disdain, are having a problem with the logic here. Could YOU perhaps

clarify what we 'dummies' can't seem to get and explain how what Binney says and what Snowden says, in Pro's comment, differ at all except in HOW the NSA is using the vast amount of data they have collected on Americans?

So far, it appears that Binney said 'they have data on Members of Congress too, on everyone'.

Then Pro posted Snowden's statement which said 'the NSA has granted immunity from their spying to Congress'.

To my 'dummie' mind, it seems BOTH are saying the same thing regarding the illegal collection of massive amounts of data on Americans.

The difference is that Snowden says they have granted Congress immunity from spying. Imagine that if true, the NSA having that much power over Congress.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Is this sarcasm?

[ReRe]

58. No it's not...

When I first started on DU, I was so confused. People wouldn't signify their sarcasm. Believe me, the dude isn't being sarcastic. He is as serious as a heart attack.

[Vanje]

49. LOL!

Comedy Genius!

[hootinholler]

25. Why are you wasting your time with the FUD monger? n/t

[ProSense]

26. LOL! Clown. n/t

[hootinholler]

28. Thank you!

Being called a clown by you is like being called a traitor by Cheney.

[ProSense]

29. Well,

"Being called a clown by you is like being called a traitor by Cheney. "

...sometimes a clown is just a clown.

NSA veteran: "So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550

[hootinholler]

30. Ooooo, that only rated one link?

So. Fucking. Transparent.

[ProSense]

31. Actually:

"Ooooo, that only rated one link? So. Fucking. Transparent."

...You. Got. Pwned.

[RC]

57. Why, when I read your posts here on the wholesale spying on American citizens, I think of

the DU dungeon of old, where the dungeon masters were defending the bu$h administration's version on 9/11? Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that their version of what happened could not possibly be true, just from simple physics.
Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is much weaker than mine. Yours seems to be, if the government is doing it, it must be legal and the 4th Amendment doesn't actually apply in that situation.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This wholesale spying on everyone's private communications would seem to be a violation of our Constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. After all, it is still our private communications, our words, our thoughts. Even though they go through a 3rd party, we do not relinquish ownership of that information.
Without probable cause, the government does not have any right to it, warrant or otherwise.

Using "But I used the a cell phone, so the phone company owns that information now, not me, so you can not use it to prove the charges against me.", won't get you very far in the court room.
Either that information is ours or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
Why do you seem to think we give up our right to privacy because we use E-mail instead of snail mail? Both are still private communions.

Our Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew how badly future governments have twisted their plain words to be used as weapons against the citizenship, using as the excuse that, because the technology of exchanging words has changed, the 4th Amendment no longer applies.

[ReRe]

59. ^^^+++

Really. It's elementary.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. Wow. Well said.

[aikoaiko]

51. Jury Results

So what does FUD mean?

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why are you wasting your time with the FUD monger? n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3040654

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

If FUD means what I think FUD means, this is CS-violating rudeness, thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:56 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack against a long-time DUer. Hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I vote to leave it alone since the alerter was too lazy to tell us exactly when he thinks "FUD" means in this post he took the time to alert on.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't know what FUD means and since the alerter isn't inclined to share, I'm leaving it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hootinholler]

63. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

It's an old acronym that goes at least back to the usenet days of the intertubes, before the WWW.

[Poll_Blind]

4. Great interview- well worth watching!

PB

[Catherina]

22. Thanks for watching. These refute the professional nonsense being spammed on these boards

very firmly. I'm sure they're being spammed in this thread too since my ignore list indicates some frenzied activity.

Oh well lol. As Greenwald put it, "save some melodrama and rhetoric for coming stories, you'll need it". But there is a silver lining for those who can't control themselves and run from thread to thread, spamming their already discredited talking points- it just destroys their credibility more for quiet observers. Hence the frenzy of course.

Thanks for watching. And to the Clapper contingent of this world

[giftedgirl77]

6. GEN Allen's emails weren't his

He sent them through a government computer & used his government email account, therefore had no expectation of privacy. All employees sign a user agreement once a year acknowledging this, you must initial each block within the agreement.

Therefore, this entire argument is crap because all gov employees fall under the same umbrella when using these access points & email providers.

[sabrina 1]

9. It's crap that they are spying on Congress? See Binney's and then Snowden's seeming contradiction

Pro-sense's comment and my response to Pro-Sense.

[KittyWampus]

20. it isn't a "seeming" contradiction. It is a contradiction. And are we talking about the NSA tapping

into communications cables directly and recording LITERALLY everything including Congress?

Or are we talking about PRISM where the NSA gets a warrant (regardless what anyone thinks of that warrant's validity) and then accesses communications' records on customers and in that process pulls out Congressional numbers?

AFter about a week of trying to understand this issue, it seems the two programs are being mashed together. And while they feed into each other, they are separate. Yet discussions on DU & elsewhere make it very difficult to tell what is being referenced.

[sabrina 1]

42. The only difference is, is Snowden's claim the the NSA has granted Congress immunity from their

surveillance. He and Binney agree that they 'are surveilling everyone, even members of Congress'. THAT should send chills down the spine of any American. It would help explain the odd behavior of some of the people we elected as Democrats.

[ReRe]

61. Why do Binney and Snowden's statements have to "add up"?

Do you think these two men are in cahoots with each other? Why does it HAVE to be a "contradiction?" What difference does it make if they didn't sing in harmony? Do you think it makes Snowden a liar? What? You're splitting hairs here.

[KoKo]

8. Recommend...well worth the watch.

[KittyWampus]

18. What grabs me- all 3 gentlemen say they could develop a system with built in safeguards but were not

allowed to do so. And the system the NSA went with is not only much more open to abuse but MORE EXPENSIVE.

And this has been my own main concern from day 1 of Snowden & even more so during Bush years>>> It's about the money.

The NSA is yet another black hole to shovel our tax dollars into so a small group can benefit hugely.

[Catherina]

32. Agreed Kitty. One of the whistle-blowers said they tried to but were shot down everytime

In that same video he said all the decisions for national security started being based on profit analysis. Not security but profit! He said that's when all the out-sourcing for profit started too.

Think back... Carlyle war... profit

and now... Carlyle surveillance... profit

It's all so sick, so deeply perturbing.

[zeemike]

43. Hey, they got to make their money some way.

If you don't pay them to blow up shit in another country then you have to pay them to spy in this one...

There is one saying that is undeniably true in the bible....The LOVE of money is the root of all evil...

Awesome job you and some others are doing here to bring this to light by the way...

[Catherina]

66. The NATO doctrine... "If we're losing... we will blow up the world" - Halperin

"The NATO doctrine is that we will fight with conventional forces until we are losing, then we will fight with tactical weapons until we are losing, and then we will blow up the world." - Morton Halperin

Morton H. Halperin (born June 13, 1938) is an American expert on foreign policy and civil liberties. He served in the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton administrations and in a number of roles with think tanks and universities such as the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard University. He is currently Senior Advisor for the Open Society Institute which was founded by George Soros.

Halperin served in the Department of Defense under President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Richard Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

...

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began taping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months, but the taping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin

Thank you Zeemike. If this country is worth dying for, it's worth the effort to do this.

[zeemike]

68. That was interesting about Halprin

I did not know the details of that story...even though I was living and awake then.

We are blessed to be living in a time where all this information is so available to us and cursed buy the same things that makes it so...

[Catherina]

70. It's bittersweet like you said

Overall I don't think it's progress because of the high price tag.

[marions ghost]

52. Yes

a system with safeguards is technically doable. And it is what we must push for. User protections. We can see there's no reason to trust them. We have been treated like children who "don't understand."

But now we do.

[ReRe]

62. Exactly!

It's a big black hole filled with PRIVATE CONTRACTORS. The intelligence agencies "out-source" the collection of the data to the Private Contractors, giving the Agency Heads plausible deniability, i.e. NO liability! So when they are forced to come to the Hill and sit in front of Congress, they can deny EVERYTHING and be "truthful." And 70% of the entire intel budget goes to Private Contractors!

[JimDandy]

23. Wish he had provided PROOF-we'd have been 6 months ahead on this. n/t

[Catherina]

27. Proof is hidden away which explains why Snowden took such drastic steps,

The proof is hidden away which explains why Snowden took such drastic steps, first to go get enough proof and then to alert the public, without the predictable obstruction, to bring this corrupt house of cards down. I agree with you about how great it would have been.

Thomas Drake was also not in a position to access the highly classified documents about this. The documents Snowden leaked are only accessible to very few people. So all previous leakers had was their *word* and when they took their *word*, their integrity, their courage to the only channels they were allowed to, like the Intelligence Committee, nothing was done. Wanna know why?

[hr]Question:
User avatar for AhBrightWings
AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm

My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the **Gang of Eight**, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

[hr]

**The current Gang of Eight**

Background

The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, under 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2), the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he thinks "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.[not verified in body]
...
The individuals are sworn to secrecy and there is no vote process

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.[1]

Members of the Gang of Eight (intelligence)

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Mike Rogers (R): (Chair)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D): (Ranking member)

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Dianne Feinstein (D): (Chair)
Saxby Chambliss (R): (Ranking member)

Leadership in theUnited States House of Representatives:

John Boehner (R): (Speaker of the House)
Nancy Pelosi (D): (Minority leader)

Leadership in the United States Senate:

Harry Reid (D): (Majority leader)
Mitch McConnell (R): (Minority leader)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_%28intelligence%29

And now they're revving up for full obstruction mode.

[randome]

33. Clapper gave his testimoney after Snowden absconded.

Snowden isn't thinking clearly. Understandable. I guess he has a lot on his mind.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

45. Clapper has a lot on his mind also. Like maybe whether he should go back to that multi million

dollar 'security' Corporation he was the CEO of, Booz Allen, NOW, and quit while he's only this far behind, or wait to see how they might be able to distract from the whole issue, maybe even use some of that data they have to create a distraction, a Congressional Scandal maybe, and then we could all just move forward again, in the wrong direction. Until then next Whistle Blower emerges.

Maybe they all should just abide by the law and they wouldn't be running around trying to explain all the wrong doing that keeps being exposed, and they keep trying to 'explain'. You don't have to explain anything when you have nothing to explain. Or hide. Isn't that what they tell us all the time?

Doesn't it make you feel all secure to see the revolving door between Multi Billion Dollar 'Security' Corps and Powerful Positions in our Government, such as Director of Intelligence. There could be no conflict of interest at all there, could there?

[Union Scribe]

73. But then we'd have to put up with whatever mud

the OP could dig up on this guy instead of Snowden, lol.

[xtraxritical]

35. J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.

[DJ13]

36. Could the secrets of Congress members be why the majority of them

refuse to vote to improve the country?

Remember the GOP's voting in lockstep since Obama won, including members with records of supporting many Democratic positions in the past?

We know Cheney left some of his faithful in various positions after leaving office (and Obama either wouldnt, or couldnt remove them from their positions), I'm just wondering if the NSA etc. programs werent being used to keep some Congress members in line by threats of revealing personal info?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Not exactly. If you know that politicians can be bought, if you can uncover what it takes to buy

them (give a high-paying job to a spouse, a scholarship for a prestigious university to child, etc.), why would you need to threaten them?

The super-rich have money. Lots of it. Why threaten a politician when you can buy them, and have inside information to know what it takes to buy them so that they will stay bought? Threatening a politician is logically reserved as a last resort.

[zeemike]

48. And could also explain why Obama

did a sudden right turn after being elected...they made him an offer he could not refuse.

[ReRe]

50. William Binney infers: It's the Constitution, Stupid! Dec 2012

K&R

Well, the anti-Constitutionalists are out today, if you haven't run into them yet.

William Binney is a brilliant mathematician, but he's able to break it down into layman's terms so everyone can understand it. Did you hear him mentioning "graphs"? And how he remembers all those codes, as easy as WE remember the "4th of July, 1776," I'll never know.

I am pretty busy today, but I would like to add a couple links for anyone who would like to read/watch some history on the domestic surveillance that's going on, or has been going on for a very long time:

http://www.democracynow.org/topics/domestic_surveillance

http://www.democracynow.org/topics/nsa

[Rex]

54. With the way they all lined up behind GWB to do anything he said or wanted

really makes me wonder who they got AT&T to tap and what dirt they had on them.

[Catherina]

65. The secret AT&T spy room? That was NSA. The whisteblowers confirmed it

but it was NSA operating it. They had a secret room and it was their employees

I'm thinking along the same lines you are. There's a lot of dirt here. The whistleblowers also stated that there are several more of these throughout the US, 10-20.

The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)

By James Bamford
03.15.12


...

As chief and one of the two cofounders of the agency’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, Binney and his team designed much of the infrastructure that’s still likely used to intercept international and foreign communications.

He explains that the agency could have installed its tapping gear at the nation’s cable landing stations—the more than two dozen sites on the periphery of the US where fiber-optic cables come ashore. If it had taken that route, the NSA would have been able to limit its eavesdropping to just international communications, which at the time was all that was allowed under US law. Instead it chose to put the wiretapping rooms at key junction points throughout the country—large, windowless buildings known as switches—thus gaining access to not just international communications but also to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the US. The network of intercept stations goes far beyond the single room in an AT&T building in San Francisco exposed by a whistle-blower in 2006. “I think there’s 10 to 20 of them,” Binney says. “That’s not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast.”

...


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

[TakeALeftTurn]

55. k&r

.

[quakerboy]

69. I have to wonder how, say

The witness protection program folks feel about prism.

Or perhaps the folks working on organized crime cases.

No way that criminals won't find a way to access this system for their own benefit. Corporate criminals sure, but as far as I can tell none of our law enforcement officials give a damn about those ones. But the less well politically connected criminals will find ways to benefit at the cost of all of us as well. Wonder how long till a story like that hits the news?

[Octafish]

71. Explains how Impeachment got off the table.

Smirko had the goods on the good guys and gals.

[jazzimov]

72. Wait a minute - he resigned in 2001?

Then how would he know what the NSA is doing post-2008? We knew Bush was illegally wiretapping us, which is why the 2008 limitations were added.