NSA and telecoms Traitors and criminals or Heroes

[revelarts]

the focus on Snowden seems to be overblown. Some Congresspersons and people here are cranked up and terribly upset at him, ready to throw him in jail, but there seems to be an odd ignoring to the fact that the congress, the presidents and the NSA with the help of the telecoms and credit card companies etc are RIGHT NOW getting your information and packing it away to "use against you" in a court of law.

actively currently pissing on your rights.
As you read this and as you type your gov't is recording it, and tracking your phone location and other information.
Is this really legal? is the constitution REALLY the law here? or Does what the current congress allows or the NSA understands it allows in it's own private secret rulings trump the constitution.

are congress, traitors for setting this up, low life scum bags, who have run for thin veils of regulations as cover instead of out of the country?

For fun I've taken some of you folks comments and edited them just a bit:

WHO gets to break Constitution? Anyone? What is the criteria for being allowed to break a the constitution? Does this apply to ALL of the constituion? Will there be anything codified supporting the breaking of the constitution, and which are OK to break and which would be going too far? Will there be something written that describes the line where something can be unconstitutional without consequence and others have consequences? Do we allow it only with things that we disagree with? What if it's something we agree with them doing, but others don't? It sounds to me like anything in the constitution, so long as anyone with access to it disagrees with it, and feels its makes people safe, they are free to disregard it and all the rights of the people? Does every government/fbi/cia/nsa employee get to make this decision? Should these intelligence agencies be put on notice, that if one of their employees feels something they see is wrong, it then becomes legal to break constitution completly forgetabout the rights of the citizens ?

And still no one has given a reasonable answer as to why they couldn't have tried Constitutional channels first, prior to going directly to the illegal route..

....
but stealing confidential documents/records of the citizens and storing them falls under various criminal charges.

....
It's honorable that you guys want to defend the intel agencies but I'm glad the stuff came out into the open.
Unless one makes a mockery of our courts, or outright disregards law, they WILL be found guilty. their ONLY hope is a sympathetic jury, which of course is always a possibility.

.....
that future people should automatically break the constitution based on that? No point in even having a Constitution then if we are telling everyone with access to the data that they can disseminate it, because of another guy in the past who did it without going through proper channels?

.....

In this case, the congress and telecom not only weren't willing to take consequences, they purposely changed/added to the county's regs after breaking the law, in order to avoid punishment. Will it work for him? Time will tell. From everything I've read about them from the reporters they gave the information to, they've attempted to coerce them in ways they believed they should tell his story. This seems more of the public getting some information that will hopefully lead to a renewed discussion of what we've lost and what we want to regain or keep. However, the goverments purposes seem self-driven and selfish.

...........
congress the NSA etc should also be tossed in jail
..........

The point I was making, there is no reason the government should not have had access to that info without warrants,

[jimnyc]

The point I was making, there is no reason the government should not have had access to that info without warrants,

Based on what I've read thus far, and what I've been told they were collecting and storing, I agree with you. But Snowden still committed a crime. Let the courts handle it at least, if he doesn't hide and fight extradition, but we can't just ignore it because we think it's good that the information is now out there. If they find him not guilty down the road, so be it, he's a free man and I wouldn't take issue with the result. But no one should be able to commit a crime and be immune to the law, or above the law as if it doesn't apply.

I know, I know, many will say that this is what the government does, they're untouchable, they too break the law without consequences. Hey, I never defended their actions. Another good reason why congressional inquiries would have been great, I would love to see these people 'outed' at the very least. We have recourse, to see that they don't get re-elected. But just because we despise this aspect of 'big brother', it's not an invitation to play a game, see what we can steal, and if worthy, laws don't apply.

Snowden has already stated he looks forward to court - in Hong Kong. If he's doing the right thing, let him have his day in court where he broke the law.

[revelarts]

i'm just saying is we don't need to sit back and assume that the congress , Obama, NSA chiefs etc are immune to prosecution. And Shurg our shoulders and hope they aren't reelected.

I don't really care about Snowden's alleged offense.

If i see a man stealing a document from my bank and another Man robbing a bank of all it's funds.
My angry and concern is HIGHER for the bank robber espespially if's the banks CEO and tellers. the facts that they they changed the banks rules to allow them to steal "legally" is of far more concern.
And the harm done is far greater.

I'm not going to spend much energy or concern over the document thief. Certainly not going to wonder about the ramifications of document theif in future and just hope they fire the bank manager and maybe one day change the rules back to a no stealing policy while my pay check is still auto deposited there

[jimnyc]

i'm just saying is we don't need to sit back and assume that the congress , Obama, NSA chiefs etc are immune to prosecution. And Shurg our shoulders and hope they aren't reelected.

I don't really care about Snowden's alleged offense.

If i see a man stealing a document from my bank and another Man robbing a bank of all it's funds.
My angry and concern is HIGHER for the bank robber espespially if's the banks CEO and tellers. the facts that they they changed the banks rules to allow them to steal "legally" is of far more concern.
And the harm done is far greater.

I'm not going to spend much energy or concern over the document thief. Certainly not going to wonder about the ramifications of document theif in future and just hope they fire the bank manager and maybe one day change the rules back to a no stealing policy while my pay check is still auto deposited there

I think the people collectively should press Congress and others in charge to hold people accountable. If it's bad legislation, change it. If it was willful criminal action, charge them By no means do I agree with this data collecting, but with Congressional approval it will be difficult to prove willful law breaking. But I agree this is something that should certainly be on the table. And then I think the people should hold ALL criminals to answer for their crimes and let the courts make a decision.

Just like your analogy. Even if a bank manager was caught embezzling, regardless of the outcome of the complaint against him, we don't let the other criminal just walk free.

Your desire to hold the government accountable is so strong that you are willing to allow others to commit criminal actions to get your way. In other words, then ends justify the means. I was once told that we were a nation of laws and that committing crimes didn't justify the ends.

[revelarts]

I think the people collectively should press Congress and others in charge to hold people accountable. If it's bad legislation, change it. If it was willful criminal action, charge them By no means do I agree with this data collecting, but with Congressional approval it will be difficult to prove willful law breaking. But I agree this is something that should certainly be on the table. And then I think the people should hold ALL criminals to answer for their crimes and let the courts make a decision.

Just like your analogy. Even if a bank manager was caught embezzling, regardless of the outcome of the complaint against him, we don't let the other criminal just walk free.

Your desire to hold the government accountable is so strong that you are willing to allow others to commit criminal actions to get your way. In other words, then ends justify the means. I was once told that we were a nation of laws and that committing crimes didn't justify the ends.

I brissle at the ends justifies the means. when i read that i hear, regular torture is ok if it works and X is accomplished.

you seem to think a minor crime here or there where little to no harm is done is AS bad as a major crime where people are slaughtered.

I'll make that trade off a few times a year and sleep well.
you seem to worry that it makes all law null and void if that happens.

we disagree.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg061313dAPR20130613124525.jpg

[revelarts]

NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.


The news of the NSA following us and listening in on some phone calls (http://globalgrind.com/news/edward-snowden-girlfriend-nsa-leaks-plan-escape-photos) was already enough to cause controversy, but now things are getting more intense.
According to CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/), the National Security Agency is reportedly listening in on phone calls without any warrants, and that members of the Congress agreed they could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

The site reports:

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.



please tell me how you can secretly interpret a law?


...Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the head of the House Intelligence committee, told CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/16/rogers-nsa-is-not-listening-to-americans-phone-calls/?hpt=hp_t2) on Sunday that the NSA "is not listening to Americans' phone calls" or monitoring their e-mails, and any statements to the contrary are "misinformation." It would be "illegal" for the NSA to do that, Rogers said....

Guess what he right about one thing it is Illegal.
but wrong that it's not happening.

Crogress needs to offer anynalt some legal immunity and full pensions only if they'll testify to what thier capabilities are.

Those liers at the top of intel and congress people throwing up smoke screens like 3rd world leaders lying about massacres, after the mass grave sites have already been name in public and people have begun IDing remains.

[revelarts]

Congressman proposes a DO NOTHING BS Bill to reign in the NSA.



http://amash.house.gov/press-release/nsa-surveillance-amash-conyers-introduce-major-bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 18, 2013

CONTACT
Will Adams
202.225.3849
will.adams@mail.house.gov


NSA Surveillance: Amash, Conyers Introduce Major Bill

Bipartisan Coalition of 34 Members of Congress Propose LIBERT-E Act


Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, and Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, announced the introduction of bipartisan legislation to address National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance.

H.R. 2399, the Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act (LIBERT-E Act), restricts the federal government’s ability under the Patriot Act to collect information on Americans who are not connected to an ongoing investigation. The bill also requires that secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court opinions be made available to Congress and summaries of the opinions be made available to the public.

A coalition of 32 Members of Congress joined Conyers and Amash in introducing the bill late Monday. After introduction, Conyers and Amash issued the following statement:

“The recent NSA leaks indicate that the federal government collects phone records and intercepts electronic communications on a scale previously unknown to most Americans.

“The LIBERT-E Act imposes reasonable limits on the federal government’s surveillance. The bill puts some teeth into the FISA court’s determination of whether records the government wants are actually relevant to an investigation. It also makes sure that innocent Americans’ information isn’t needlessly swept up into a government database. LIBERT-E prohibits the type of government dragnet that the leaked Verizon order revealed.

“We accept that free countries must engage in secret operations from time to time to protect their citizens. Free countries must not, however, operate under secret laws. Secret court opinions obscure the law. They prevent public debate on critical policy issues and they stop Congress from fulfilling its duty to enact sound laws and fix broken ones.

“LIBERT-E lets every congressman have access to FISA court opinions so that Congress can have a more informed debate about security and privacy. And the bill requires that unclassified summaries of the opinions be available to the public so that Americans can judge for themselves the merit of their government’s actions.

“We are proud to lead a broad, bipartisan coalition that’s working to protect privacy. It shouldn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Defending the Constitution and protecting Americans’ rights should be an effort we all can support.”

The following Members of Congress cosponsored the legislation:

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN)
Rep. William Enyart (D-IL)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Rep. James McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO)
Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL)
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC)
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)




SO basically they want the FISA court to tell congress and the Citizens more about the spying.

It's OK if you BEAT me just tell me where and How much some times that all
As long as we know then it's ok.

But never mind about what NSA never tells the FISA court about.
Do they really expect people to buy this as a solution. it's not even a fake band aid.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LtKysf6TRSA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

Shep Smith killing it! LOL
privacy gone
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zX4A1PK9A4U?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

gov't can kill Americans in the country or out of the country.. maybe
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x90cCC1UDWE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

SO courts HAVE said that it's NOT legal...


“When the president does it that means it is not illegal.” These infamous words from Richard Nixon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8) appear to summarize the public legal justification for the Obama administration’s unprecedented mass surveillance operation. Perhaps worse, Permanent Washington would have us believe that this rationale is unquestionably accurate and that therefore the National Security Administration’s surveillance is perfectly legal.
For example, Richard Haas (https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/343867168267579392) of the Council on Foreign Relations said of Edward Snowden: “‘Whistleblower’ is person who reveals wrongdoing, corruption, illegal activity. none of this applies here even if you oppose U.S. government policy.” Likewise, the Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender (https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/343867168267579392) insists, “I wish media would stop calling Snowden a whistleblower — it maligns those who truly reveal corrupt or illegal activity.” And the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html?mbid=social_retweet?mbid=social_mobile_t weet&mobify=0) definitively states: “These were legally authorized programs.”
The idea here, which has quickly become the standard talking point for partisans trying to defend the NSA program and the Obama administration, is that while you may object to the NSA’s mass surveillance system, it is nonetheless perfectly legal as is the conduct surrounding it. Therefore, the logic goes, Snowden isn’t an honorable “whistle-blower” he’s a traitorous “leaker,” and the only criminal in this case is Snowden and Snowden alone.
The first — and most simple — way to debunk this talking point is to simply behold two sets of testimony by Obama administration national security officials. In one, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/wyden-clapper-nsa-video-congress-spying.html) categorically denies that the government “collect(s) any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” In another, the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining) reports that NSA Director General Keith Alexander “denied point-blank that the agency had the figures on how many Americans had their electronic communications collected or reviewed.”
Both of those claims, of course, were exposed as lies by Snowden’s disclosures. So at minimum Snowden deserves the title “whistle-blower” (and the attendant protections that are supposed to come with such a title) because his disclosures outed Clapper and Alexander’s statements as probable cases of illegal perjury before Congress. In other words, in terms of perjury, the disclosures didn’t expose controversial-but-legal activity, they exposed illegal behavior.
That’s not some technicality, by the way; the whole reason perjury before Congress is considered a serious crime is because if executive branch officials like Clapper and Alexander are permitted to lie to the legislative branch, then that branch cannot exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities. Harsh punishment for perjury is considered a necessary deterrent to such deception.
There’s also the issue of whether the NSA’s surveillance itself is legal, and whether Snowden’s disclosures show the NSA is continuing to break U.S. federal statutes (we’ll get to the Constitution in a second). Yes, you read that right: The word “continuing” is appropriate because back in 2009, NSA officials admitted they were breaking the law.
As the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html) reported at the time, the agency “intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress.” Additionally, the Times noted that “several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed” about the illegal activity “described the practice as significant and systemic.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304189-dem-senator-disputes-obamas-claim-that-congress-was-briefed-on-nsa-program) yesterday declared that his review of the program proved it violates federal statutes.
“When I saw what was being done, I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law,” he told MSNBC.
In light of the NSA itself already admitting it broke the law in “systemic” fashion; in light of a prominent senator saying the program is illegal; and in light of the “Boundless Informant” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining) disclosure showing the NSA may be broadly surveilling domestic (rather than exclusively foreign) communications as statutes are supposed to curtail: In light of all that, why would anyone simply assume at face value that the program Snowden exposed is perfectly legal?
Finally, over and above whether the NSA program is complying with federal statutes, there’s the issue of the program’s constitutionality — aka the ultimate definition of “legality.”
Permanent Washington and Obama partisans who support the NSA surveillance program cite the Patriot Act and the fact that NSA obtained a FISA warrant as proof that the program is legal and as a way to ignore the constitutional questions. They would have us not only ignore the NSA’s own aforementioned admissions of illegal behavior, but additionally have us believe the constitutionality of NSA’s unprecedented surveillance and of such a broad-sweeping “ongoing” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order) FISA warrant has already been definitively established, even though, of course, it hasn’t. Not even close.
Four cases are particularly relevant here. In the first two (ACLU vs. NSA (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/iaclu-v-nsai-federal-court-decision) and the al-Haramain charity case (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/22-7)), district courts ruled for plaintiffs in their arguments that the NSA’s warrantless surveillance is illegal. There was also the Clapper vs. Amnesty International case, which challenged the constitutionality of the underlying FISA law, which authorizes the kind of surveillance that Snowden’s disclosures document. And, according to Mother Jones (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion), there is “an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.” In that latter case, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence actually admits that the NSA has engaged in behavior that is “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that “circumvented the spirit of the law.”
In the first three cases, technicalities won the day when they were all (http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-challenge-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act) eventually (http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080219.asp) overturned (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/justice/warrantless-wiretap-lawsuit-dismissed) not on grounds that the NSA’s mass surveillance is constitutional, but on grounds that the plaintiffs supposedly didn’t have standing. Summing it up, Reuters (http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/10_-_October/U_S__top_court_won_t_review_telecom_immunity_for_s urveillance/) reports, to date, “The (Supreme Court) has refused to review government surveillance practices adopted since the attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Why weren’t all these plaintiffs granted standing, you ask? As legal expert Marcy Wheeler notes, it’s all related to — you guessed it! — secrecy.
“The government has gone to great lengths to say because this is all secret, no one can prove they’ve been surveilled, so (plaintiffs) can’t make a harm argument,” she said.
Put another way, it’s difficult to prove a case against the government when the government is allowed to keep case-critical information classified.
Meanwhile, on the fourth case reported by Mother Jones, the government is still fighting to keep the court ruling secret.
All of that brings us back to Snowden’s disclosure. With his whistle-blowing, more germane details about the NSA’s entire surveillance operation are now public, meaning other plaintiffs may now have access to information necessary to achieve standing. And there are, indeed, already other plaintiffs: For instance, Sen. Rand Paul (R) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/rand-paul-nsa_n_3411587.html) is promising to mount a Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of the broad FISA warrant at issue in Snowden’s disclosure (at issue will be the yet-to-be-adjudicated question of whether such an “ongoing” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order) warrant that allows spying on millions of Americans really comports with the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” precept). Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit) already has a case against NSA surveillance pending.

Those cases coupled with the information from Snowden could, in turn, compel an explicit Supreme Court ruling on the entire surveillance system’s legality.
Looked at from a constitutional perspective, then, we shouldn’t simply assume Snowden’s disclosures are about a controversial-but-legal NSA program, as NSA defenders and Obama loyalists assert. Instead, it’s quite possible they may help definitively prove the illegality of the surveillance operations.
No doubt, all these statutory and constitutional questions surrounding the NSA’s surveillance operations are why when publicly claiming that the program is perfectly legal, Obama officials also, according to Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-07/the-justice-department-says-nsa-surveillance-is-legal-but-it-wont-tell-you-why), refuse to make public their jurisprudential justifications for such a claim. They clearly fear that when subjected to scrutiny, the program will be shown to be, as Sen. Merkley put it, “Out of sync with the plain language of the law.”
Thus, the administration’s strategy is to at once stonewall on the details and insist ad nauseam that everything is perfectly legal, when that assertion is, at best, a fact-free assumption, and more likely a devious misdirect. That Permanent Washington and so many Obama loyalists would nonetheless echo such a misdirect is a commentary on how political self-interest and partisanship now trumps everything else — even the law of the land.


http://media.salon.com/2011/09/DavidSirota_bio-75x75.jpg (http://www.salon.com/writer/david_sirota/) David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com (http://www.davidsirota.com/).

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/put_the_nsa_on_trial/

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Aw-nVARvfec?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[revelarts]

"the Office of the Director of National Intelligence actually admits that the NSA has engaged in behavior that is “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that “circumvented the spirit of the law.”"

Isn't all of that just euphemism for "WE BROKE THE LAW & VIOLATED the CONSTITUTION"?






http://www.cato.org/blog/nsa-surveillance-violated-constitution-secret-fisa-court-found<time class="date-property-single" content="2012-07-23 16:29:58">July 23, 2012 12:29PM</time>
NSA Surveillance Violated Constitution, Secret FISA Court Found By Julian Sanchez (http://www.cato.org/people/julian-sanchez)



Share

Americans are being told that there’s no need to worry about the broad surveillance programs authorized by the controversial FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Yet a report from Wired this weekend paints a more disturbing picture (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/): National Security Agency surveillance enabled by the FAA was found “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “on at least one occasion.” The court also found that the government’s implementation of its authority under the statute had “circumvented the spirit of the law.” Despite these troubling rulings from a court notorious for its deference to intelligence agencies, Congress is so unconcerned that lawmakers don’t even want to know (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/nsa-spying-and-the-illusion-of-oversight/) how many citizens have been caught up in the NSA’s vast and growing databases.
These revelations come by way of a letter (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/07/2012-07-20-OLA-Ltr-to-Senator-Wyden-ref-Declassification-Request.pdf) to Sen. Ron Wyden—who will be speaking about this very government spying program at Cato this Wednesday (http://www.cato.org/www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9173)—from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which approved Wyden’s request for declassification of a few morsels of information about secret FISA Court rulings. In the interest of permitting some minimal public debate about the FAA, which is currently before Congress for renewal, Wyden was told he would be allowed to say the following—and only the following publicly:


A recent unclassified report (https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html) noted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has repeatedly held that collection carried out pursuant to the FISA Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
It is also true that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
I believe that the government’s implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

That first statement is almost certainly a direct reference to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assertions (http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/07/20/ron-wyden-to-dianne-feinstein-pants-on-fire/) in a recent report (https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/faa-extend.html) from the Senate Intelligence Committee—which noted that the Court has blessed much of the surveillance under Section 702, the part of the FAA that permits warrantless acquisition of international communications. Given the massive volume of NSA surveillance, however, the fact that some NSA surveillance was held constitutional is much less significant, for purposes of public accountability, than the fact that some of it was unconstitutional. Feinstein’s summary of those positive classified opinions was made public weeks ago, apparently without much trouble. Yet only now that the FAA renewal has made it through multiple committees is the public permitted to know—after much tooth-pulling from a senator, via a letter released late on a Friday afternoon—how incomplete that summary really was.
It’s cause for concern any time government exceeds the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, but it should be truly worrying when it’s in the context of mass-scale spying by the NSA. Based on what little we know of the NSA’s programs from public reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?pagewanted=2), a single “authorization” will routinely cover hundreds or thousands of phone numbers and e-mail addresses. That means that even if there’s only “one occasion” on which the NSA “circumvented the spirit of the law” or flouted the Fourth Amendment, the rights of thousands of Americans could easily have been violated.
Moving from confirmed fact to mild—but I think reasonable—speculation, there is something about the peculiar phrasing of these statements worth noticing: “collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures.” Minimization procedures are the rules designed to limit the retention and dissemination of irrelevant information about innocent Americans that might get picked up during authorized surveillance. In ordinary criminal wiretaps, it makes sense to talk about “collection carried out pursuant to… minimization procedures” because, under the stricter rules governing such spying, someone is supposed to be monitoring the wiretap in realtime, and ensuring that innocent conversations (like a mobster’s spouse or teenage kids chatting on the house line) are not recorded.
But that’s not how FISA surveillance normally works. As a rare public ruling by the FISA Court (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html) explains, the standard procedure for FISA surveillance is that “large amounts of information are collected by automatic recording to be minimized after the fact.” The court elaborated: “Virtually all information seized, whether by electronic surveillance or physical search, is minimized hours, days, or weeks after collection.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, minimization is something that normally happens after collection: First you intercept, then you toss out the irrelevant stuff. Intelligence officials have suggested the same in recent testimony before Congress: Communications aren’t “minimized” until they’re reviewed by human analysts—and given the incredible volume of NSA collection, it’s unlikely that more than a small fraction of what’s intercepted ever is seen by human eyes. Yet in the statements above, we have two intriguing implications: First, that “collection” and “minimization” are in some sense happening contemporaneously (otherwise how could “collection” be “pursuant to” minimization rules?) and second, that these procedures are somehow fairly intimately connected to the question of “reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment.
To make sense of this, we need to turn to the Defense Department’s somewhat counterintuitive definition (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/524001r.pdf) of “collection” for intelligence purposes. As the Department’s procedures manual explains:

Information shall be considered as “collected” only when it has been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component in the course of his official duties…. Data acquired by electronic means is “collected” only when it has been processed into intelligible form.
This dovetails with a great deal of what we know about recent NSA surveillance, in which enormous quantities of communications are stored in a vast database codenamed Pinwale for later analysis. Under the FAA, the Court doesn’t review in advance whether there’s probable cause to justify surveillance of any particular individual, as is normally the case with search warrants. Rather, the Court simply verifies that the NSA is employing “targeting procedures” designed to pick up communications with at least one foreign participant. By that limited standard, an algorithm designed to record every call and e-mail between the United States and Pakistan (or England) would qualify, which hardly sounds stringent enough to pass Fourth Amendment muster even under the looser rules that apply to foreign intelligence.
The language of these statements, however, would be consistent with the clever “solution” former NSA employees and whistleblowers like Bill Binney have long been telling us the agency has adopted (https://www.eff.org/node/71133). Referring to a massive data storage facility being constructed by NSA in Utah (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/), Binney writes:

The sheer size of that capacity indicates that the NSA is not filtering personal electronic communications such as email before storage but is, in fact, storing all that they are collecting. The capacity of NSA’s planned infrastructure far exceeds the capacity necessary for the storage of discreet, targeted communications or even for the storage of the routing information from all electronic communications. The capacity of NSA’s planned infrastructure is consistent, as a mathematical matter, with seizing both the routing information and the contents o all electronic communications.
Binney argues that when NSA officials have denied they are engaged in broad and indiscriminate “interception” of Americans’ communications, they are using that term “in a very narrow way,” analogous to the technical definition of “collection” above, not counting an e-mail or call as “intercepted” until it has been reviewed by human eyes. On this theory, the entire burden of satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “reasonableness” is borne by the “minimization procedures” governing the use of the massive Pinwale database. On this theory, the constitutional “search” does not occur when all these billions of calls and emails are actually intercepted (in the ordinary sense) and recorded by the NSA, but only when the database is queried.
This is a huge departure from what has traditionally been understood to be constitutionally permitted. We do not normally allow the government to indiscriminately make copies of everyone’s private correspondence, so long as they promise not to read it without a warrant: The copying itself is supposed to require a warrant, except in extraordinary circumstances. It appears almost certain that a very different rule is in effect now, at least for the NSA.
It cannot be overemphasized how dangerous such a change would be. Traditionally, a citizen’s right to private communication was either respected or violated at the time it occurred: Your rights would be violated in realtime, or not at all, and even in the lawless era of J. Edgar Hoover, only so many citizens could be spied on at once. Under this new regime, the threat to our rights is perpetual. Even if this administration and the next are scrupulous about respecting civil liberties, even if every man and woman currently employed by the NSA is noble and pure of heart, the conversation you have today may well be there for the use or misuse of whoever holds power in ten years, or fifteen, or twenty. Will the incumbent president in 2032 resist the temptation to hunt for dirt in online chats from his opponent’s college years—showing greater restraint than so many past presidents? One must hope so—but better to design the rules of a free society so that such leaps of faith aren’t required.

[gabosaurus]

If Snowden is "not afraid of prosecution," why is he seeking political refuge in Ecuador?

[revelarts]

Binney writes:

The sheer size of that capacity indicates that the NSA is not filtering personal electronic communications such as email before storage but is, in fact, storing all that they are collecting. The capacity of NSA’s planned infrastructure far exceeds the capacity necessary for the storage of discreet, targeted communications or even for the storage of the routing information from all electronic communications. The capacity of NSA’s planned infrastructure is consistent, as a mathematical matter, with seizing both the routing information and the contents o all electronic communications.
Binney argues that when NSA officials have denied they are engaged in broad and indiscriminate “interception” of Americans’ communications, they are using that term “in a very narrow way,” analogous to the technical definition of “collection” above, not counting an e-mail or call as “intercepted” until it has been reviewed by human eyes. On this theory, the entire burden of satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “reasonableness” is borne by the “minimization procedures” governing the use of the massive Pinwale database. On this theory, the constitutional “search” does not occur when all these billions of calls and emails are actually intercepted (in the ordinary sense) and recorded by the NSA, but only when the database is queried.
This is a huge departure from what has traditionally been understood to be constitutionally permitted. We do not normally allow the government to indiscriminately make copies of everyone’s private correspondence, so long as they promise not to read it without a warrant: The copying itself is supposed to require a warrant, except in extraordinary circumstances. It appears almost certain that a very different rule is in effect now, at least for the NSA.
It cannot be overemphasized how dangerous such a change would be. Traditionally, a citizen’s right to private communication was either respected or violated at the time it occurred: Your rights would be violated in realtime, or not at all, and even in the lawless era of J. Edgar Hoover, only so many citizens could be spied on at once. Under this new regime, the threat to our rights is perpetual. Even if this administration and the next are scrupulous about respecting civil liberties, even if every man and woman currently employed by the NSA is noble and pure of heart, the conversation you have today may well be there for the use or misuse of whoever holds power in ten years, or fifteen, or twenty. Will the incumbent president in 2032 resist the temptation to hunt for dirt in online chats from his opponent’s college years—showing greater restraint than so many past presidents? One must hope so—but better to design the rules of a free society so that such leaps of faith aren’t required.
http://www.cato.org/blog/nsa-surveillance-violated-constitution-secret-fisa-court-found<time class="date-property-single" content="2012-07-23 16:29:58">July 23, 2012 12:29PM


</time>
DoJ Fights to Stop Release of Secret Court Opinion on Unlawful Surveillance of Americans (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/29/ron_wyden_doj_may_have_to_release_fisa_related_doc uments_demonstrating_excessive.html) by Ryan Gallagher, slate.com -- May 29, 2013

[...]
Last year, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had found “on at least one occasion” that the government had conducted spying that was “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” which is designed to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Wyden said that the FISC, which operates largely in secret, had found that the government acted unconstitutionally in how it had implemented so-called “minimization procedures” intended to limit how data on Americans are collected and retained. The senator added that the government was found to have “circumvented the spirit” of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, a controversial spy law that civil liberties groups claim effectively allows “dragnet surveillance.” When Wyden revealed the FISC ruling on the unlawful snooping, he did not disclose details about exactly what the surveillance involved or how many Americans were affected. But his comment prompted the Electronic Frontier Foundation to take legal action in an attempt to obtain more information. After filing suit in a district court, the rights group successfully established earlier this year that the Justice Department holds an 86-page FISC opinion, issued on Oct. 3, 2011, which appears to be the case Wyden cited. Now the EFF wants that opinion to be made public.
The DoJ said in a court memorandum filed in the district court case that it should not have to publish the secret opinion because doing so could cause “exceptionally grave and serious damage” to national security by revealing sources and methods. In addition, the DoJ claims that it could not elect to release the opinion even if it wanted to because publication would have to be approved by the FISC judge who authored it. In response, EFF has taken up the case directly with the FISC, which is now considering whether to release the documents on the unlawful surveillance. Last week, FISC Judge Reggie Walton ordered the DoJ to respond by June 7 to a motion filed by EFF requesting the release of the opinion, giving the department a fresh opportunity to advocate for non-disclosure....


legaltimes.typepad.com -- June 07, 2013

Amid the national debate over privacy and surveillance, the Justice Department is fighting a civil liberties group's effort to obtain a copy of a lengthy, secret court ruling that declared government monitoring of communications unlawful. The Justice Department today filed papers in the Washington-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying "there is good reason not to vacate the seal on the opinion." The ruling -- sealed by the surveillance court, and considered classified by the executive branch-- is at the center of a Freedom of Information Act case pending in Washington federal district court.
[...]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/08/1214675/-FISA-Oversight-Score-for-2012-NSA-1-789-vs-4th-Amendment-0
[...]

<time class="date-property-single" content="2012-07-23 16:29:58">

if all this stuff Obama is doing is legal and he's not worried about prosecution why is he running to court and Begging them to KEEP THE COURT RULING SECRET?
</time>

[red states rule]

http://media.cagle.com/226/2013/06/12/133117_600.jpg

[jimnyc]

If Snowden is "not afraid of prosecution," why is he seeking political refuge in Ecuador?

Because he lied about his motives, IMO. He IS clearly running from justice and his day in court. So on top of his crimes, he was talking no more than lines of BS when he first got to HK.

[revelarts]

Because he lied about his motives, IMO. He IS clearly running from justice and his day in court. So on top of his crimes, he was talking no more than lines of BS when he first got to HK.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png U.S. charges Snowden with espionage
Started by jimnyc, 06-22-2013 10:07 AM <dl class="pagination" id="pagination_threadbit_41498"><dd> 1 2 3 ... 4
Replies: 47
</dd></dl>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png WikiLeaks: Snowden going to Ecuador to seek asylum
Started by red states rule, Yesterday 02:49 PM
Replies: 3


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?
Started by red states rule, 06-11-2013 01:51 PM 1 2 3 ... 7
Replies: 98


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years
Started by jimnyc, 06-12-2013 06:54 PM
Replies: 19

there are quite few Snowden threads,
this one is about the NSA et al's crimes and traitorous actions thanks

[revelarts]

What can be done about it
<q class="right">"There are three ways this could stop."</q>
"There are three ways this could stop," said Cindy Cohn, a legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans), an advocacy group focusing on the rights of internet and electronic device users.

"The executive branch could say, ‘We’re done, we’re stopping this.’

Congress could make them stop one way or another, either by passing a law against it or defunding it.

Or the third way is for the courts to issue an order saying this is illegal or unconstitutional."


But Congress is not showing anything close to the near-uniform outrage that advocates and citizens have expressed toward the surveillance program. On the contrary, lawmakers appear — not atypically — fiercely divided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-lawmakers-defend-nsa-program-to-collect-phone-records/2013/06/06/2a56d966-ceb9-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html)on the question of whether such broad surveillance efforts are deplorable invasions of privacy, or necessary tools for thwarting terror.
Several lawmakers did take strong stances against the Verizon surveillance effort. "Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American," wrote Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) (http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=337001), one of the co-authors of the original PATRIOT Act, in a press statement released Thursday. "The National Security Agency's seizure and surveillance of virtually all of Verizon's phone customers is an astounding assault on the Constitution," wrote Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=837) in his response. Lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary and House Judiciary committees said Thursday they would launch hearings (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/304073-overnight-tech-hill-to-probe-nsa-data-collection?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) investigating the phone surveillance program.

But other lawmakers, in keeping with Senator Feinstein’s stance, defended the effort. House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-lawmakers-defend-nsa-program-to-collect-phone-records/2013/06/06/2a56d966-ceb9-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html), author of the controversial cybersecurity bill CISPA (http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/27/2976718/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-cispa-hr-3523), went even further, saying, "Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States," but declined to provide further specifics, saying he was working to get them unclassified.
"If the government can make the case to the American people that spying on everyone helps them find the 0.0001 percent of people who are involved in terrorist activity, then I welcome them to do that," Cohen said. "Put up or shut up."


Still, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is not waiting around for Congress to take action. It’s taking the third route to end surveillance — the courts. In fact, on this issue the EFF has been ahead of the curve (https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline) for many years, filing a lawsuit against AT&T in federal court in 2006 based on preliminary data indicating a mass phone surveillance effort. That was months before the USA Today story was published. The lawsuit has suffered numerous setbacks and was eventually dismissed outright in 2008, after Congress granted retroactive immunity to phone companies allowing wireless wiretapping of customers under FISA. But it survives today in the form of another ongoing lawsuit against the NSA itself (https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel), this one in a California federal district court.
"We’re waiting for the judge’s decision," Cohen told The Verge, noting that EFF would bring the recent Verizon surveillance order to the judge’s attention. "Hopefully the court will issue an injunction to stop the program." Even if that happens, surveillance won’t stop right away, as the US government will have a chance to appeal the ruling. "It may go all the way to the Supreme Court," Cohen said. "The American people deserve their day in court."


http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4403886/nsa-fbi-verizon-phone-customer-surveillance-program

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png U.S. charges Snowden with espionage
Started by jimnyc, 06-22-2013 10:07 AM <dl class="pagination" id="pagination_threadbit_41498"><dd> 1 2 3 ... 4
Replies: 47
</dd></dl>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png WikiLeaks: Snowden going to Ecuador to seek asylum
Started by red states rule, Yesterday 02:49 PM
Replies: 3


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?
Started by red states rule, 06-11-2013 01:51 PM 1 2 3 ... 7
Replies: 98


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/firstnew.png Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years
Started by jimnyc, 06-12-2013 06:54 PM
Replies: 19

there are quite few Snowden threads,
this one is about the NSA et al's crimes and traitorous actions thanks

Don't worry about where I post - unless you would like me to monitor what you post, and where? Considering you just posted in an FBI terror thread, about Snowden, that instantly makes you a hypocrite. Furthermore, it was Gabby who asked a question, I simply answered it.

Would you like me to do a search on "snowden" and merge all similar threads together? Would that help you stop crying about how much attention is paid to what angers you? :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Don't worry about where I post - unless you would like me to monitor what you post, and where? Considering you just posted in an FBI terror thread, about Snowden, that instantly makes you a hypocrite. Furthermore, it was Gabby who asked a question, I simply answered it.

Would you like me to do a search on "snowden" and merge all similar threads together? Would that help you stop crying about how much attention is paid to what angers you? :rolleyes:

i mentioned Snowden in reference and comparison to the FBI most wanted list, yep i sure did.
But here both comments are Snowden for evil Snowden's sake. With nothing to do with the NSA's crimes or anything else posted here. a bit different seems to me.

But Like i said Jim post what you want, I've just pointed out what appears to a big inconstancy. that's it. don't combine or move anything , no nee for that

...Furthermore, it was Gabby who asked a question, I simply answered it.... I replied to her question trying to get the thread back on track.

but I asked a lot of questions here too. funny no ones bothered to address any of those.
Snowdens a more important a criminal i guess.:unsure:

[revelarts]

Start page and Iquick dot com
are search engines THAT do NOT pass on user info to others. they are heroes. and an example of how an internet company CAN operate. there's no need to SAVE user info.





No PRISM. No Surveillance. No Government Back Doors. You Have our Word on it.

Giant US government Internet spying scandal revealed

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html) and The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data) have revealed a US government mass Internet surveillance program code-named "PRISM". They report that the NSA and the FBI have been tapping directly into the servers of nine US service providers, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL and Skype, and began this surveillance program at least seven years ago. (clarifying slides (https://startpage.com/eng/prism-slides.html))
These revelations are shaking up an international debate.
StartPage has always been very outspoken when it comes to protecting people's Privacy and civil liberties. So it won't surprise you that we are a strong opponent of overreaching, unaccountable spy programs like PRISM. In the past, even government surveillance programs that were begun with good intentions have become tools for abuse, for example tracking civil rights and anti-war protesters.
Programs like PRISM undermine our Privacy, disrupt faith in governments, and are a danger to the free Internet.
StartPage and its sister search engine Ixquick have in their 14-year history never provided a single byte of user data to the US government, or any other government or agency. Not under PRISM, nor under any other program in the US, nor under any program anywhere in the world. We are not like Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Apple, Skype, or the other US companies who got caught up in the web of PRISM surveillance.
Here's how we are different:


StartPage does not store any user data. We make this perfectly clear to everyone, including any governmental agencies. We do not record the IP addresses of our users and we don't use tracking cookies, so there is literally no data about you on our servers to access. Since we don't even know who our customers are, we can't share anything with Big Brother. In fact, we've never gotten even a single request from a governmental authority to supply user data in the fourteen years we've been in business.
StartPage uses encryption (HTTPS) by default. Encryption prevents snooping. Your searches are encrypted, so others can't "tap" the Internet connection to snoop what you're searching for. This combination of not storing data together with using strong encryption for the connections is key in protecting your Privacy.
Our company is based in The Netherlands, Europe. US jurisdiction does not apply to us, at least not directly. Any request or demand from ANY government (including the US) to deliver user data, will be thoroughly checked by our lawyers, and we will not comply unless the law which actually applies to us would undeniably require it from us. And even in that hypothetical situation, we refer to our first point; we don't even have any user data to give. We will never cooperate with voluntary spying programs like PRISM.
StartPage cannot be forced to start spying. Given the strong protection of the Right to Privacy in Europe, European governments cannot just start forcing service providers like us to implement a blanket spying program on their users. And if that ever changed, we would fight this to the end.

Privacy. It's not just our policy, it's our mission.

Sincerely,

Robert E.G. Beens
CEO StartPage.com and Ixquick.com


https://startpage.com/eng/prism-program-exposed.html

[revelarts]

Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails

National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion "transactions" — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States. Binney talks about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and challenges NSA Director Keith Alexander’s assertion that the NSA is not intercepting information about U.S. citizens.





AMY GOODMAN: You, for a time, directed the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Tell us what you did and then why you left and what happened to you afterwards.
WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I was the technical director of that group, that basically looked at the world, so we looked at all the technical problems of—in the world, and see how we could solve collection, analysis and reporting on military and geopolitical issues all around the world, every country in the world. So, it was a rather large technical problem to tackle, but it—and one of the largest problems we thought we had was looking at the World Wide Web and all the ballooning and mushrooming communications in the world. And our ability to deal with that was diminishing over time, so I kind of referred to it as our inability to keep up with the rate of change. So, we were falling behind the rate of change.
So we—I had a very small group of people in a lab, and we decided to attack that problem. And we did it by looking at how we could graph the network of communications and all the communications in the world, and then—and then focus in on that graph and use the graph to limit what we wanted to attack. And we basically succeeded at that, but in the process, of course, we scooped up Americans from different places, so we had to protect their identities, according to our laws and privacy rights of U.S. citizens. So, under USSID 18, we built in protections to anonymize their identities, so you couldn’t really tell who you were looking at.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And that’s because the NSA could do surveillance from abroad, but not of U.S. citizens.
WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, and, you see, the World Wide Web routes things all over, so you never really know where U.S. citizens’ communications are going to be routed. So, you—if you were collecting somewhere else on another continent, you could still get U.S. citizens. That’s—see, that was a universal problem. So we devised how to do that and protect U.S. citizens. So—and this was all before 9/11. And we devised how to do that, made that effective and operating. So we were actually prepared to deploy about eight months before 9/11 and actually have a system that would run and manage the—what I call 20 terabytes a minute of activity.
So—but after 9/11, all the wraps came off for NSA, and they decided to—between the White House and NSA and CIA, they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens and collect on domestically. So they started collecting from a commercial—the one commercial company that I know of that participated provided over 300—probably, on the average, about 320 million records of communication of a U.S. citizen to a U.S. citizen inside this country.
AMY GOODMAN: What company?
WILLIAM BINNEY: AT&T. It was long-distance communications. So they were providing billing data. At that point, I knew I could not stay, because it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. Plus it violated the pen register law and Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the intelligence acts of 1947 and 1978. I mean, it was just this whole series of—plus all the laws covering federal communications governing telecoms. I mean, all those laws were being violated, including the Constitution. And that was a decision made that wasn’t going to be reversed, so I could not stay there. I had to leave.

I had a more info in my post i thought was it edited?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/2...blower_william (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_w illiam)

Video of democracy now interview
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/2...blower_william (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_w illiam)




http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...vacy-left.html (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-senator-warned-in-1975-the-national-security-agencys-capability-at-any-time-could-be-turned-around-on-the-american-people-and-no-american-would-have-any-privacy-left.html)
Senator Church’s Prophetic Warning
Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“

Now, the NSA is building a $2 billion dollar facility in Utah which will use the world’s most powerful supercomputer to monitor [I]virtually all phone calls, emails, internet usage, purchases and rentals, break all encryption, and then store everyone’s data permanently.
The former head of the program for the NSA recently held his thumb and forefinger close together, andsaid (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1):

We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state
So Senator Church’s warning was prophetic....

[jimnyc]

Based on what I've read thus far, and what I've been told they were collecting and storing, I agree with you. But Snowden still committed a crime. Let the courts handle it at least, if he doesn't hide and fight extradition, but we can't just ignore it because we think it's good that the information is now out there. If they find him not guilty down the road, so be it, he's a free man and I wouldn't take issue with the result. But no one should be able to commit a crime and be immune to the law, or above the law as if it doesn't apply.

I know, I know, many will say that this is what the government does, they're untouchable, they too break the law without consequences. Hey, I never defended their actions. Another good reason why congressional inquiries would have been great, I would love to see these people 'outed' at the very least. We have recourse, to see that they don't get re-elected. But just because we despise this aspect of 'big brother', it's not an invitation to play a game, see what we can steal, and if worthy, laws don't apply.

Snowden has already stated he looks forward to court - in Hong Kong. If he's doing the right thing, let him have his day in court where he broke the law.


I think the people collectively should press Congress and others in charge to hold people accountable. If it's bad legislation, change it. If it was willful criminal action, charge them By no means do I agree with this data collecting, but with Congressional approval it will be difficult to prove willful law breaking. But I agree this is something that should certainly be on the table. And then I think the people should hold ALL criminals to answer for their crimes and let the courts make a decision.

Just like your analogy. Even if a bank manager was caught embezzling, regardless of the outcome of the complaint against him, we don't let the other criminal just walk free.

Your desire to hold the government accountable is so strong that you are willing to allow others to commit criminal actions to get your way. In other words, then ends justify the means. I was once told that we were a nation of laws and that committing crimes didn't justify the ends.


But Like i said Jim post what you want, I've just pointed out what appears to a big inconstancy. that's it. don't combine or move anything , no nee for that
I replied to her question trying to get the thread back on track.

but I asked a lot of questions here too. funny no ones bothered to address any of those.
Snowdens a more important a criminal i guess.:unsure:

I've spoken out against the governments actions. Many times already I have stated that they should release specifically what legislation allowed this to happen, and who voted on it to allow it. I stated they should, at the very least, should be outed, removed from office or shitcanned next election. I would also support charges should the facts call for it and the law supports it. All I know thus far is what activity happened (to an extent), and that they had congressional approval to do so.

If it had been a regular discussion, I likely would have stated more. But when a thread goes from a story into youtube videos, it's hard for me to respond, as I won't be watching the videos. I wouldn't watch them if it was something about Snowden either. I prefer reading, but that's just me.

But it's funny you point out this inconsistency. Over the years, you have probably made about 5,000 posts about wrongdoing within the government - but rarely, if ever, do I see you posting about criminals like Snowden, or even terrorists - unless it's about the terrorists "rights" anyway. So save your attempts to call things black, when you're MORE guilty of what you accuse others of.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...but I asked a lot of questions here too. funny no ones bothered to address any of those.


Really? Complaining because no one wants to play with you? Please.

[revelarts]

I've spoken out against the governments actions. Many times already I have stated that they should release specifically what legislation allowed this to happen, and who voted on it to allow it. I stated they should, at the very least, should be outed, removed from office or shitcanned next election. I would also support charges should the facts call for it and the law supports it. All I know thus far is what activity happened (to an extent), and that they had congressional approval to do so.

If it had been a regular discussion, I likely would have stated more. But when a thread goes from a story into youtube videos, it's hard for me to respond, as I won't be watching the videos. I wouldn't watch them if it was something about Snowden either. I prefer reading, but that's just me.

But it's funny you point out this inconsistency. Over the years, you have probably made about 5,000 posts about wrongdoing within the government - but rarely, if ever, do I see you posting about criminals like Snowden, or even terrorists - unless it's about the terrorists "rights" anyway. So save your attempts to call things black, when you're MORE guilty of what you accuse others of.

I said you've talked about "both" several times Jim.
But you keep saying you don't know if it's illegal and i've post several items that show that Judges and others have said it's Illegal.

I'm not sure what your wondering about but you don't seem to wonder if Snowden is Guilty of acting illegally or treasonously when he hasn't had a trial.

that's fine. that's your Opinion. I just want a place here to talk about NSA 'et als that's all.

As far as terrorist go, you say i talk about their rights'. If you check i talk about OUR rights.
That have to be applied equally. i thought that was the LAW.

ANd How many REAL terrorist are there to talk about Jim? most of the time we are talking about Terror suspects that are already dead, tortured, or in prison or some guy making gold coins on trail as a terrorist or some disabled vetran being felt up by the TSA lookin for terrorist. So yeah there's A LOT more obvious offenses by the gov't than actual U.S. terrorist to talk about Jim. As ive said many time the terror threat is HYPED. shown it in charts etc..
While the constitutional offenses of the U.S. gov't are real and personal.

I've mentioned alqeada Terrorist in Lybia, not much response, have we given any guns to alqeada Syria yet.. or Jundulla terrorist in iran or have we gone after the Saudi funders of terror etc etc.. I've mentioned that kinda stuff that plenty of times. few reply though. gets kind of boring talking to yourself about terrorist and terror support alone. no one seems to like my idea about 100 intel persons dedicated to each KNOWN terrorist. i've been told we need a wider net or the terrorist are gonna kill us all of something like that.
well the net is as wide as it can get and they still didn't see the Boston bombers coming EVEN after they'd been warned by other gov'ts.

the wide net is complete BS. and the war on terrorism is run in a BS way.

[revelarts]

Really? Complaining because no one wants to play with you? Please.

Not complaining just stating a fact Marcus.

[jimnyc]

Rev, you talk about terrorists when it's a way to condemn our government. You recently 'condemn' the terrorists in Syria, as it's condemning our government. Certainly I'm not implying that you support them in anyway at all, but it's comical to see YOU talk about inconsistency. Well, you are consistent in condemning the government at every step, I'll give you that. But if YOU are consistent - where are the threads you have started talking about individual terror attacks? Condemning their almost daily attacks around the world? Applauding our intel agencies and military for the TONS of terror attacks they have thwarted since 9/11? I'm not saying you don't care about these things, but you're so blinded by your hatred for our government that these types of things get overshadowed. And then you have the audacity to call others inconsistent.

[revelarts]

Rev, you talk about terrorists when it's a way to condemn our government. You recently 'condemn' the terrorists in Syria, as it's condemning our government. Certainly I'm not implying that you support them in anyway at all, but it's comical to see YOU talk about inconsistency. Well, you are consistent in condemning the government at every step, I'll give you that. But if YOU are consistent - where are the threads you have started talking about individual terror attacks? Condemning their almost daily attacks around the world? Applauding our intel agencies and military for the TONS of terror attacks they have thwarted since 9/11? I'm not saying you don't care about these things, but you're so blinded by your hatred for our government that these types of things get overshadowed. And then you have the audacity to call others inconsistent.


:rolleyes:

Jim, help me out here.
What terror attacks are you talking about. the bombs in Iraq?
Do you mean the list of terror attacks threads some have put up here? "Muslim man kills woman in Pakistan" " Muslim men attacks church in India " "Car bomb in Indonesia terrorism"?
What tons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States) of thwarted attacks in the U.S. Jim?
Show me the threads here that anyone has posted on those.
Most of the terrorist post are about PHANTOM someday attacks, and PHANTOM terrorist
or, as i mentioned ,the Terror suspects that are already dead, tortured, or in prison, or set-up ,or some guy making gold coins on trail as a terrorist or some disabled veteran being felt up by the TSA lookin for terrorist.

If you can correct me with TONS of links on this site of others that have done what you say should be done.
I'll stand corrected Jim.

You know i'm not Pro Terrorism. But Jim terrorist are not copying all my phone calls or e-mails etcetc.
That's happening now and it pisses me off, sorry if some are more afaid of terror. but the Gov't crime on every U.S citizen is NOW!
Some people may be to blinded by false fears of terror and faux patriotism and national loyalty to want to complain about the gov't.

[aboutime]

Rev. You, and Gabby should both have your heads examined. BUT.....that would mean the two of you have anything to examine. And, that doesn't appear to be the case, or possible.

You really do sound like every person you intimidate, and try to convince of your Phony Biblical followings. How sad.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c11027720130625120100.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/obama-congress-toilet-paper-constitution-political-cartoon.jpg

http://agentinfidel.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/constitution-obama-cartoons.jpg



Congress: we're shocked, Shocked! to hear that Spying on all Americans is going on here...
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5INs_w_7xxA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[fj1200]

Perhaps this is what the power of the pardon was granted for.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps this is what the power of the pardon was granted for.

Many have already started that process. Over 100,000 signatures on the WH page looking for just that (petitions). I doubt you'll see it under Obama's watch. But who knows, maybe a future president will do just that.

[red states rule]

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20130606&Category=BLOG24&ArtNo=130606033&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Mike-Thompson-NSA-tracking-you

[red states rule]

Not complaining just stating a fact Marcus.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/426656_10151704395317848_760894726_n.png

[revelarts]

See Video of Tice and Edmonds interview
http://www.corbettreport.com/compromised-how-the-national-security-state-blackmails-the-government/

Partical transcipt interview details not included

by James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/)
June 26, 2013
While the world watches every twist and turn in the unfolding Edward Snowden drama, the story becomes less and less about the information he revealed and more and more about an international manhunt. But if the issues of PRISM and spying on China and GCHQ’s spying at the G20 are falling off the radar, then how much further off the radar is the story of Russell Tice?
Although very few are aware, Russell Tice was one of the NSA sources that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau used for the original 2005 New York Times report (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=91d434311b0a7ddc&ex=1292821200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&) on the warrantless wiretapping scandal. In 2009 he went even further, revealing on national TV that the NSA was specifically targeting journalists’ communications (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFprWnCjPA) in a massive and undisclosed eavesdropping program.


And just last week, Tice went further than ever in exposing NSA corruption. In two exclusive interviews with BoilingFrogsPost (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/) and The Corbett Report (http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-685-russ-tice-reveals-the-truth-about-nsa-spying/), he revealed that not only is the NSA now intercepting and storing all electronic communications in the United States, but that Tice himself had personally handled the paperwork authorizing wiretaps on some of the most powerful judges, lawyers, military officers, and elected officials in the country, including soon-to-be President Barack Obama.


That the NSA is covertly spying on all three branches of the American government is nothing short of scandalous. Tice’s revelations are especially appalling to anyone even remotely familiar with how exactly the type of information collected in such intercepts can be used for the purposes of political blackmail, and how profoundly that blackmail can shape the political landscape of the country. In fact, there is a long history of intelligence agencies and covert groups using precisely this type of information to blackmail politicians in the past.
Political blackmail is as old as politics itself, but perhaps the best-known example of the past century was J. Edgar Hoover’s secret files (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/02/fbi-director-hoover-s-dirty-files-excerpt-from-ronald-kessler-s-the-secrets-of-the-fbi.html). Almost from his appointment as director of the Bureau of Investigation, which morphed into the FBI in 1935, Hoover began amassing confidential information that the bureau collected on politicians in the course of their investigations. The files included information on the liasons and affairs of Eleanor Roosevelt, JFK, RFK, MLK, and a host of other figures. He openly held this information over them, telling JFK over lunch in March 1962 that he had wiretaps of Kennedy having an affair with Judith Campbell Exner, the mistress of Chicago mafia don Sam Giancana. As a result, no President ever dared to fire Hoover, and Hoover’s FBI became untouchable by anyone in Washington. Many of the secret files were destroyed after Hoover’s death.


In 1954, political blackmail was used to bring down Senator Lester Hunt, ultimately leading to his suicide. (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/10/historic-political-blackmail-led-to-senate-suicide-and-delay-of-gay-rights/)
Nor is this a peculiarly American phenomenon. In 2005, a massive wiretapping scandal (http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair) was uncovered in Greece, where more than 100 high-ranking dignitaries were found to have been bugged, including the Prime Minister. When the scheme was uncovered, the Network Planning Manager for Vodafone Greece, the cell phone network through which the communications were tapped, was found dead in his apartment of an apparent suicide.


In the News of the World scandal surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s media empire and the phone hacking that was rampant in the British tabloid world, the inquiries included investigations into the allegations that top politicians were targeted for hacks in order to gather dirt for a plot to blackmail members of an influential Parliamentary committee (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/news-international-tried-to-blackmail-select-committee-7792687.html).


And as FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds detailed in a recent interview (http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-687-sibel-edmonds-blows-the-whistle-on-government-blackmailing/) on The Corbett Report, the FBI’s tactics of gathering dirt on politicians did not end after Hoover’s death. During her tenure with the agency in the early part of last decade, she witnessed how the Bureau would hang on to information gained from eavesdropping on FBI investigation targets who were conspiring with top-ranking political figures. The information, as Edmonds and the field agents involved in the investigations surmised, was being stored for later use in blackmailing politicians who crossed the Bureau or its director.


Earlier this week, Sibel Edmonds appeared on The Corbett Report to discuss the Tice revelations, her own direct experience with eavesdropping on Congress in the FBI, and how this information can be wielded by a small clique to make themselves de facto rulers over the American political system.


The picture that is being painted by Tice and Edmond’s revelations is a grim one. It tells the tale of a government that is no longer “by and for the people” (to the extent that it ever was), but by and for a small intelligence establishment with the means to spy on and blackmail judges, lawyers, officials and even the President. Lest there be any doubt about the extent to which the FBI and the NSA collaborate and cover for each other in these operations, a telling moment was accidentally caught on microphone after NSA head General Keith Alexander’s testimony in front of a Congressional hearing. Alexander and the NSA was vigorously defended at the hearing by FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce, and after the meeting Alexander was overheard thanking Joyce (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344098/NSA-hearing-Hot-mic-catches-NSA-boss-praising-FBI-chiefs-supportive-testimony-surveillance-programs.html) for the FBI’s part in covering for the NSA operations.


It is difficult to overemphasize just how serious these allegations are, or how fundamentally they threaten the very foundations of the American political system. Every four years, millions of people go to the polls believing that they are pulling the levers for the candidate of their choice, a representative who will take their concerns to Washington in an attempt to better their communities. In reality, if these latest allegations really do amount to a systematic blackmailing operation, the people are not voting for a representative, but the FBI or the NSA or whatever other agency is able to collect and use blackmailable information in the name of “national security” operations.


Given just how fundamentally this calls into question the very notion of a democratically elected constitutionally-restrained American Republic, one would expect that among the non-stop, 24/7 network coverage of the Edward Snowden story there would be some time, even a few minutes, to devote to Tice’s allegations. At the very least, one would expect that these networks would at least solicit an official denial from the NSA press office or vet Tice’s claims against other NSA whistleblowers.


Not only have the networks NOT covered the story, however, they have gone out of their way not to cover it. In the weeks preceding Tice’s interviews with Boiling Frogs Post and The Corbett Report, he was scheduled for four separate on-camera interviews with major television networks. All four interviews were cancelled. After his recent allegations were made public, MSNBC invited him on to talk about the NSA spying scandal, but just minutes before the interview they told him that he was specifically forbidden (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/21/msnbc-censors-nsa-whistleblower-russ-tice-minutes-before-interview/) from bringing up the wiretapping allegations during the segment.


Worse, Glenn Greenwald, who has received universal acclaim amongst the alternative press and universal derision amongst the pampered establishment journalistic class for his dogged pursuit of the Edward Snowden case, has not even acknowledged Tice’s claims, let along attempted to report on them. Greenwald was specifically asked for comment on this report regarding Tice’s allegations, but has so far failed to reply.


Given the recent reminders that journalists, too, are privy to the same data collection and blackmail that the courts and the government itself is subjected too, it is safe to assume that these recent revelations are simply too hot for any establishment journalist to handle. This means it is now up to the viewers of this report to help disseminate this information and to alert others to the fact that national security establishment whistleblowers are alleging massive data collection and blackmail by the intelligence agencies. It is not until the societal conversation can be directed away from the manhunt for Snowden and toward questioning the very existence of the “national security” state and the extraordinary powers that have been granted to the intelligence agencies to operate in that arena, that the American people can even start to devise a solution to this problem.

[aboutime]

Seems like nobody is willing to talk much more about this. So I will. But. Has anyone considered how SNOWDEN just may become the victim of his own dishonesty?

In that, I mean. When...whatever nation he finally agree's to seek shelter in...finishes with him. HE IS TOAST.

In fact. Despite all of the hyperbole, and claims about his patriotism, or treasonous acts. Snowden would probably be wise to return to the U.S. before all of the supposed information he claims to have leaked....is finished.

On the other hand. Obama is pretending he doesn't care. But I believe. Obama needs Snowden to be silenced in some way. Obama needs to protect himself from the Treasonous tactics, and abuse of his Oath.

[red states rule]

As gutless as Obama is I would be surprised to see Putin actually do this


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11036220130627120100.jpg

[revelarts]

NSA caught on film listening/recording to phone calls and checking e-mails
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9gtV-rSyEc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Seems like nobody is willing to talk much more about this. So I will. But. Has anyone considered how SNOWDEN just may become the victim of his own dishonesty?

In that, I mean. When...whatever nation he finally agree's to seek shelter in...finishes with him. HE IS TOAST.

In fact. Despite all of the hyperbole, and claims about his patriotism, or treasonous acts. Snowden would probably be wise to return to the U.S. before all of the supposed information he claims to have leaked....is finished.

On the other hand. Obama is pretending he doesn't care. But I believe. Obama needs Snowden to be silenced in some way. Obama needs to protect himself from the Treasonous tactics, and abuse of his Oath.

A little history about Snowden, in his own words:


WASHINGTON — Years before he became the world’s most notorious leaker, Edward Snowden ranted online about how he hated people who spill secrets so much that he wanted to blast them in the private parts, it was revealed yesterday.

In 2009, the tech geek declared on a Web forum that groups such as WikiLeaks and The New York Times, which publish sensitive government information, “should be shot in the balls.”

Using the username TheTrueHOOHA, Snowden launched his attack on leakers on a tech-news Web site called Ars Technica, according to The Washington Post.

“Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ,” he wrote. “You don’t put that s--t in the NEWSPAPER . . . That s--t is classified for a reason.’ ”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/turncoat_turnaround_TDtlo93ArG7wolssW2zSPK

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v4z09el30f8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz062913dAPR20130628074544.jpg

[revelarts]

Whistle blower that DIDn't tell anything they could prosecute. So they charge him with something that many others have already done. He gave reporters the names of 2 FORMER CIA agents who were already OUTTED, to contact for a story. Others have done the same but ZERO prosecution. Unfair trial, with secret evidence, hidden from public, hidden from the prosecuted.

Huffpost
"John Kiriakou, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer currently serving jailtime (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-describes-life-in-prison/) for leaking the identity of a covert agent ":rolleyes:


John Kiriakou, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer currently serving jailtime (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-describes-life-in-prison/) for leaking the identity of a covert agent, has written an open letter to Edward Snowden, offering advice to the former government contractor who leaked classified information on the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

The handwritten letter was published by FireDogLake (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/02/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakous-open-letter-to-edward-snowden/) on Tuesday.
Writing from prison in Loretto, Pa., Kiriakou praises Snowden for his "heroic" actions.
"I know that it feels like the weight of the world is on your shoulders right now, but as Americans begin to realize that we are devolving into a police state, with the loss of civil liberties that entails, they will see your actions for what they are: heroic," he writes (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/02/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakous-open-letter-to-edward-snowden/).
Kiriakou, who worked as a CIA intelligence officer from 1990 until 2004, spoke out in 2007 about the use of waterboarding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html) as an interrogation technique under the Bush Administration. Last year, he plead guilty (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57538251/cia-leaker-john-kiriakou-pleads-guilty-to-revealing-covert-id/) to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for leaking the identity of a covert officer involved in the interrogation program to a freelance reporter, and was sentenced (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57565844/ex-cia-officer-john-kiriakou-sentenced-for-leaking-name-on-agencys-use-of-torture/) to 32 months in prison.
In the letter, Kiriakou offers Snowden advice from "the benefit of my own whistleblowing experience." In addition to establishing a website, finding a good attorney, and garnering the support of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Kiriakou says Snowden should under no circumstance cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
"FBI agents will lie, trick, and deceive you," Kiriakou writes. "They will twist your words and play on your patriotism to entrap you. They will pretend to be people they are not – supporters, well-wishers, and friends – all the while wearing wires to record your out-of-context statements to use against you. The FBI is the enemy; it’s a part of the problem, not the solution."
Click over to FireDogLake to read Kiriakou's full letter to Snowden. (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/02/cia-whistleblower-john-kiriakous-open-letter-to-edward-snowden/)
Prior to his sentencing, Kiriakou spoke to The Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/john-kiriakou-aaron-swartz_n_2535711.html) about his views on President Barack Obama's Justice Department.
"As bad as the Bush Justice Department was, we didn't see this kind of ... vindictive and selective prosecution of people that we see under Obama," Kiriakou said. "That's really what it is, it's vindictive and it's selective."



<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kEv5oexuNRg?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="360"></iframe>

we are in a not so soft police state folks.

make no mistakes.

Full bore surveillance state. Secret prisons overseas, Trials with secret evidence while crooks go free. Drone strike American Citizens without trials. Untouchable official war criminals , etc etc...

[revelarts]

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2013/190/3/a/smash_the_spooks__by_poasterchild-d6cq6hz.png