Glenn Greenwald: 'I Defy' the NSA to Deny Edward Snowden's Most Radical Claims Under Oath

[Vinnie From Indy]

"George Stephanopolous: Now that claim was denied by intelligence officials, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, said that he was actually lying.

But your new reporting you say bolsters Snowden's claim.

Glenn Greenwald: Right, George. One of the most amazing parts of this entire episode has been that top-level national security officials like James Clapper really did get caught red-handed lying to the American Congress, which everyone now acknowledges, about what the NSA is doing. And it's amazing that he not only hasn't been prosecuted, but still has his job. And what that does is, it lets national-security officials continue to lie to the public, which is what happened in that exchange you just referenced.

The way that I know exactly what analysts have the capability to do when they're spying on Americans is that the story I've been working on for the last month that we're publishing this week very clearly sets forth what these programs are that NSA analysts -- low-level ones, not just ones who work for the NSA, but private contractors like Mr. Snowden -- are able to do. The NSA has trillions of telephone calls and emails in their databases that they've collected over the last several years. And what these programs are, are very simple screens like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address and it does two things: it searches a database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you've entered. And it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address of that IP address do in the future.

And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst. There are legal constraints for how you can spy on Americans. You can't target them without going through the FISA court. But these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents. It's an incredibly powerful and invasive tool exactly of the type that Mr. Snowden described. And NSA officials are going to be testifying before the Senate on Wednesday. And I defy them to deny that these programs work exactly as I just said."

More at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/glenn-greenwald-i-defy-the-nsa-to-deny-edward-snowdens-most-radical-claims-under-oath/278157/

[PoliticAverse]

1. I'm sure Clapper could give a least untruthful denial. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

2. Greenwald would not testify because he can not tell the truth, he should be investigated

and outted for what he really is trying to do. To proclaim events which occurred before 2009 and present them as current events without telling the time in which they occurred is LYING.

[frylock]

6. what is he "really is trying to do?"

[Whisp]

8. ratfuck.

like he did pre2010 midterms.

[Thinkingabout]

13. You tell me what he is up to, I am not one of his fans but it is not the surveillance deal,

he is an activist, he needs to come clean for a change.

[frylock]

14. he's uhhh exposing the surveillance state?

you, like many others, continue to imply that he is in league with the libertarians, and that some nefarious plot is afoot. I've yet to see a cogent argument as to what that plot may entail. instead of details, were presented with some twisted version of the underpants gnomes business strategy. perhaps you can fill in the gaps?

[Thinkingabout]

25. Perhaps you are unable to fairly see facts clearly, why would it be important to

Expose something which occurred in and prior to 2008? Especially in the times he was backing Bush policies and now he claims he has changed his position.

[frylock]

26. backing bush policies?

do tell:

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

still waiting for details on GG's plot to.... well whatever it is he's plotting to do.

[Thinkingabout]

32. you dont know your hero very well, first know he is an activist and then follow him.

[frylock]

34. 1) he'as not my hero..

2) you've failed, yet again, to address anything that I've asked.

but hey, i'll play your little game. you know who else supports bush policy? Hillary Clinton. i'm guessing it's pretty safe to assume that you won't be voting for her in 2016, or any other dem that voted yea on IWR.

[Thinkingabout]

38. Then you know GG backed Bush policies. I am Democrat and I back Democrat candidates.

I do not back nor vote for libertarian or Republican candidates since I do not agree with their policies. I am a DU member because I like Democrat sites.

[frylock]

39. because you can't fucking bother to read..

I supported the Iraq war and/or George Bush

These claims are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:

I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .

I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[Thinkingabout]

40. You ask what Bush policies GG backed and then answered with one

Here was you response

hey, i'll play your little game. you know who else supports bush policy? Hillary Clinton. i'm guessing it's pretty safe to assume that you won't be voting for her in 2016, or any other dem that voted yea on IWR.

when you respond with a,specific policy you want to tell me I can't f**king read, I don't play your game. Don't play and give a policy and accuse others of playing.

[frylock]

41. really?

fucking really?!! bugger off.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Gotcha, you seem to be having trouble with truths or maybe it is a certain word.

[Vanje]

44. When your'e with your pals ,

Do you refer to our party as democRAT party?

[Thinkingabout]

45. Hell no, you speak of the Democrats in a disrespectful manner, you should be ashamed. Are you

other than Democrat?

[Vanje]

47. Your claim to like "Democrat Sites" is a tell.

Is there someone missing from a bridge near you?

[Thinkingabout]

51. Must be your dictionary, guess you did not check to see what a democrat might be or maybe you

don't know there are democrats around.

[morningfog]

48. It's "Democratic", not "Democrat" candidates and sites.

[Thinkingabout]

49. Democrat, not Tea Party, libertarian, Green Party, republican or anyone who is not a Democrat need

not apply. Check your definitions again, you will see.

[morningfog]

50. It is the Democratic Party. There are Democratic candidates.

[Thinkingabout]

52. Are you a Democrat? Look up the definition and see if you are a Democrat

[morningfog]

53. I am a Democrat. This is a Democratic site.

There are Democratic Candidates in the Democratic Party. There are Democrats in Congress. There are two major parties in this democracy.

There is no Democrat Party or any Democrat Candidate. There are candidates who run as Democrats, but they are Democratic Candidates. Don't fight the grammar. I am trying to help you here.

[Thinkingabout]

54. Well you have not helped anything, if a Democratic Party Candidate is not a true Democrat then there

is a difference, like in the Republican Party Candidates who are really Tea Party, there is a difference in a republican candidate and TP candidate.

[morningfog]

55. This is grammar, not politics.

Democrat Party, Democrat idea, Democrat site, Democrat Candidate are all used as epithets.

A Democratic Party Candidate is a Democrat. But they are not a Democrat Candidate and this is not a Democrat site. This is a site for Democrats, but not a Democrat site.

Rush Limbaugh intentional leaves off the "ic" as an insult, for example, anytime he refers to the Party or a Candidate or Representative.

You will likely get jumped on here every time for misusing the term Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

36. The 'your hero' response. Don't know if you are aware of this, but when someone makes such an

unverifiable claim, unless of course they have some proof they can point to, to someone they do not know on the internet, the credibility of the target of the response rises significantly.

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the commenter's 'hero' is Glenn Greenwald? If you have some proof of the claim, you could save your credibility.

[Vanje]

31. Investigative Journalism?

Real journalists do not limit themselves to repeating White House press memos.

[sabrina 1]

37. No, they don't. Which is why the Corporate media has lost all credibility when it comes to news

reporting.

And people are turning more and more to more credible sources, reporters who are not constrained by the Corporations who hire them, like Greenwald, and Scahill among others.

[cthulu2016]

19. This is funny

[jeff47]

3. Uh...Glen? You should probably read your own reporting.

You can't target them without going through the FISA court. But these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.

Yeah, you reported that this was from 2008. And the program changed several times since then, most recently in 2010 where they do have to go through the FISA court.

But please, keep insisting that NSA officials break federal law by disclosing classified information. It sounds fantastic in a headline, and when they fail to break the law you can claim they are covering everything up!

[leveymg]

5. What are these '08 and '10 changes? Are FISA warrants required at the pre-warrant profiling stage?

And, what, exactly, is the difference in the range of inquiry that takes place during the 72 hours allowed by law for NSA to determine if a warrant should be sought from the investigation that occurs after a warrant is issued?

Those are the $80 billion dollar (NSA annual budget) questions. Care to take on the challenge?

[jeff47]

15. Well, first you're wrong about the 72 hours.

That's allowed by law enforcement, not the NSA. The FBI could start a wiretap or similar and get approval later. The NSA can't.

Second, the warrants that have everyone up-in-arms at the moment are the ones that allow the NSA to collect, but not analyze, metadata. The 2010 law requires the NSA to go back to the FISA court to actually look at the metadata - it's not terribly useful without a "person of interest" to start.

Those that are complaining usually conflate the "metadata" program with other NSA programs that do not gather information from US Persons, forgetting that non-US Persons don't have constitutional rights. (And no, "US Person" is not the same thing as "US Citizen&quot .

Last, Glen is explicitly complaining about revelations from 2008 which pre-date the current administration, and current law. It's a little like me complaining that slavery is legal. There's been a few intervening events.

[leveymg]

20. First, FISA warrant requirements apply to NSA and FBI, equally. Read the statute, as cited.

There is no such distinction made in the text of the Act.

If you have another source, please cite it.

Under the law as it was changed by the PATRIOT Act, analysts have 72 hours to examine US person content before they have to seek a warrant. See FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h)(4): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Furthermore, NSA and its contractors have a full week to seek a FISA warrant under "exigent circumstances". 50 U.S.C. § 1805(e)(3): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

[jeff47]

22. I'm talking about the process Snowden leaked.

One of the documents Snowden leaked is the actual process for looking at the metadata.

That document shows that the NSA is the repository for the data. Searching through the data has to be initiated by the FBI, which must seek a warrant, or use the 72-hour "emergency" window.

[leveymg]

23. Look at the PRISM flow chart from the top down. The FBI is at the next to last step.

There's a lot of investigation (profiling) of persons without a warrant that goes into the decision whether to escalate the case to the FBI liaison unit. The presumption of doubt is that the subject is not a US person. I discussed the implications of that in an early section, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820

[jeff47]

24. PRISM is non-US persons. Different program.

Snowden did not leak the name of the "metadata" program, AFAIK.

[leveymg]

33. You're missing the point: PRISM profiles everyone in the process of targeting. US persons and non

US persons are run through the same system until a targeting decision is made. You can see that in the schematic:

[jeff47]

43. No, only US persons in foreign countries are possible inputs

It's really easy to not spy on US persons in US territory - there's only so many fiberoptic cables entering the US.

It's possible that a US person in a foreign country will be picked up in error. That's what people were complaining about with the "51% chance foreign person" issue. And it is not really possible to figure out if John Smith was born in Rome, NY or Rome, Italy without some digging. But that's what the 2nd box from the top on the left side is supposed to do.

What people were complaining about was building dossiers and massive storage of all US person's information. They aren't doing anything originating from US territory, because that's inherently a US person. And the documents Snowden leaked say that the information is thrown out if they determine it is a US person in a foreign country.

Which means they aren't spying on everyone in the US, and they can't build a massive collection of dossiers on US persons in foreign countries.

[leveymg]

46. You're confusing targeting with collection. They collect everything, but only after determining the

identity and possible hostile intentions of any person they are looking at "three hops out" is the targeting decision made. If that were as easy and straightforward as you imagine it is, they would not need PRISM and this elaborate system of profiling to carry out the Sec. 702 programs (and this is just one of many NSA and intelligence community programs that collect and keep data on US persons).

Here's how the ACLU summarizes the issues: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/under-fisa-amendments-act-your-calls-and-emails-cant-be-targeted-they-can

But all of these defenses ignore a simple, basic point: Communication is a two-way street. And if an American is communicating (however innocently) with a foreign "target" under the FAA, the law allows the government to collect, inspect, and keep the content of that communication. As Glenn Greenwald clarified on Tuesday, under the FAA, "no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance."

And what it does it take for the NSA to "target" a foreigner for surveillance? Not much. The target need not be a suspected terrorist or even suspected of any kind of wrongdoing. The FAA allows the government to target any foreigner when it wants to collect "foreign intelligence," which includes information about "foreign affairs." In other words, the statute allows the government to sweep up essentially every foreigner's communications, including those with Americans.

In fact, it's likely much worse than that. While official defenses have flatly stated that targets under the FAA must be both foreign and abroad, the statute only requires that the government "reasonably believe" those things to be true. And The Washington Post's report on PRISM—one government content-surveillance program authorized by the FAA—indicates that the government's "reasonable belief" need only be made to "51 percent confidence." (As The Daily Show's John Oliver put it, the rigor of that constraint amounts to the surveillance equivalent of "flipping a coin, plus one percent.&quot The Post also reported that the government not only collects the communications of a foreign target, but of "contacts two ‘hops' out from their target, which increases ‘incidental collection'" of Americans' communications "exponentially."

The government's choice of words in defense of its surveillance powers is misleading, but it also betrays a short institutional memory. In a brief filed with the Supreme Court that sought to dismiss the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the FAA, Amnesty v. Clapper, the government acknowledged (in a footnote) that the law "confers authority for collecting the contents of wire communications to or from a person in the United States." As the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer argued in front of the Supreme Court justices in that case, "the whole point of this statute was to allow the government to collect Americans' international communications." Indeed, when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the FAA's predecessor statute in 2006, CIA Director Michael Hayden said that the "communications that are most important" to the government were "those entering or leaving the United States."

BTW: when you assume the NSA just "throws out" (minimizes) the information for all those persons who have been profiled three hops out. That characterization is false. The data acquired remains in the file of the targeted person, as does all the information and quiries to and from many databanks, both US and foreign, NSA searches in conducting the profiling step to determine whether to seek a warrant for a new target, regardless of whether a FISA warrant is actually sought. Those other data banks don't minimize US person information.

In many cases, the warrantless profiling step is most of the data search component of the ensuing investigation.

[frylock]

7. yes yes. the rubber stamp FISA court stacked with conservative republicans..

rest easy, folks. it's all nice and legal.

[sabrina 1]

10. Explain these 'changes'. I know that there has been no Constitutional Amendment to alter the

the rights granted in the 4th Amendment. So what changes are speaking of?

[jeff47]

16. Well, what current violation of the 4th amendment would you like to claim?

The only NSA program that has been leaked that affects US Persons is the metadata collection program. That's the one where the NSA has to keep going to the FISA court every 3 months to continue collection. The 2010 law requires the NSA to go back to the FISA court in order to look at the data.

Glen and others have made a variety of other claims. These have either confused the metadata program with programs collecting from non-US persons, or programs that are no longer operating. Non-US persons have no constitutional rights, and those old programs are one of the reasons we should be prosecuting W and his administration.

Now, this metadata is information that is owned by the phone companies, not phone subscribers. Those same phone companies were already selling that metadata to third parties. So it's a touch difficult to claim collection of that data is a 4th amendment violation.

[sabrina 1]

18. You lost me with the bogus talking point in defense of the massive surveillance program that has

Americans and people of other countries, up in arms 'your meta data is owned by the phone companies'.

That of course is not true. And I must inform you that when I called Verizon this week to cancel my account with them, I read their privacy agreement to them, which assured me that my privacy was THEIR concern being that I pay for my data.

Interestingly, they agreed with me but denied they had shared any of MY data, note the pronoun 'MY' before data, with the Government. Now we know that is not true, and I refused the offer to remain with them as a customer, because, as I told the agent, 'I don't appreciate being stalked by the Government or having MY data handed over the Government, without an individual warrant as required by the 4th Amendment, demonstrating probable cause of wrong-doing on my part, which no one has informed me of, so I'll just go ahead and cancel this account'.

I have taken my data to another company, small, independent and so far not exposed for wrong doing as Verizon has been.

So, with that bogus claim of who owns OUR data, please supply something that shows Verizon got a warrant, and what probable cause of wrong doing on the part of tens of millions of Americans they produced, in court, to justify that warrant.

What a bunch of criminals Americans must be to allow a warrant to be issued, to invade their privacy showing probable cause of wrong doing on so many of us. I'd just like to know what we supposedly all did that was so wrong it prompted some court to issue a warrant on all of us.

[jeff47]

21. Sorry, but the phone company does own it.

Due to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling.

Doesn't matter what they put in their privacy policy. That decision declared it the phone company's data, not the subscriber's data.

I have taken my data to another company, small, independent and so far not exposed for wrong doing as Verizon has been.

I've got bad news for you. They own your metadata just as much as Verizon did. The fact that you haven't heard of them turning metadata over doesn't mean it has not happened.

please supply something that shows Verizon got a warrant,

The government gets warrants. Companies do not. Verizon is the entity that created the metadata. They don't need a court ruling to get it because they created it.

We've been over this ground many times in many different threads. You keep falling back to what you think the law is instead of what the law actually is. The reason that is a big deal is because your energy is directed at the wrong target. You need to be directing your ire at Congress so that they change the law on who owns metadata.

[blm]

30. And GOP congress in 2006 wrote legislation specifically to make telecoms immune

because they knew damn well that Bush had been using them illegally. They amended again in favor of immunity in 2008.

WE ALL KNEW THIS back then. Where is the NEW NEWS on this? Why is the corporate media only NOW interested in the program under Obama that they ignored pointedly when Bush was acting illegally from 2001-2006 and the GOP congress institutionalized the program in an effort to protect Bush and telecoms cooperating with Bush? Did anyone here at DU really believe that TIA program was stopped in 2003 just because establishment DC said it was stopped?

I can't think of any old-timers here at DU who believed TIA was discontinued.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. Kicking and Reccing to read later. nt

[backscatter712]

9. Clapper did, but his pants quickly caught fire. n/t

[sabrina 1]

11. Yes, and he's still Director of Intelligence, a Bush Republican and former CEO of Booz Allen.

He should have been fired immediately. Van Jones eg, was pushed out of this admistration for a comment, an opinion he had expressed years ago.

I wonder why the different treatment? One, the Republican, lies to Congress and there are no consequences, the other, the Progressive Democrat, does something perfectly legal, and Democrats act like it is the end of the world 'What will Republicans think of us'?? Who gives a damn what they 'think', they don't think, they lie.

[GeorgeGist]

12. It's all part of the Grand Bargain.

aka The Raw Deal.

[Fuddnik]

17. The NSA would lie under oath any time.

Even if they got caught lying, they always have the option to "revise" their testimony. None of us would ever get that right if we were caught bullshitting an FBI agent.

[kentuck]

27. It seems to me he threw the ball into the NSA's court...

He has defied them to deny these programs work exactly like he said.

I'm waiting.

[MotherPetrie]

28. K&R

[Autumn]

29. Under oath. Yeah, that's why they removed Crapper.

Oh wait, they didn't cause he just gave the least untruthful answer so it's all good.

[Rex]

35. If only Crapper would have told the truth.

Maybe become the FIRST person to tell the truth in D.C. in a long, long time. If he wouldn't have made an obvious lie, people would not be shouting FOUL from the rooftops. IOW, it is his idiot handlers that got us into this mess.


STOP LYING! It makes you look like you watch Foxnews.

[woo me with science]

56. K&R