NSA whistleblower Russ Tice goes on record with new revelations(boilingfrogspost.com)
boilingfrogspost.com
NSA whistleblower Russ Tice goes on record with new revelations
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/
129 comments
IIRC, she was also gagged by the court during her wrongful termination lawsuit, citing national security. Convenient.
Can gag order be unconstitutional or illegal?
Direct audio link is here (MP3): http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/podpress_trac/web/20927/0/BF...
---
At 0:48:26 Tice mentions the intercept order for then-Senatorial candidate Obama.
He also mentions that senior civilian, military and government leaders were explicitly targeted.
Some of the notable intercept targets included Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Samuel Alito, former FISA Court judges, U.S. Congressional intelligence committees, law firms, financial firms, State Department personnel, humanitarian NGOs.
Lawyers and civil rights groups were mentioned as well, I'm wondering if EFF was included in that.
---
Tice previously played off his unclassified resume's listing of space-based systems expertise as a cover story for his activities at NSA. However, he has now revealed that he specialized in space-based capabilities at NSA all along. This is humorous when you consider the following:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/nsa-whistlebl-2/
Do you have any connection to outer space stuff? I asked.
"I watch Buck Rogers."
---
Also of note: NSA's Bluffdale, Utah data storage facility is apparently already online and operational.
---
At 0:48:26 Tice mentions the intercept order for then-Senatorial candidate Obama.
He also mentions that senior civilian, military and government leaders were explicitly targeted.
Some of the notable intercept targets included Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Samuel Alito, former FISA Court judges, U.S. Congressional intelligence committees, law firms, financial firms, State Department personnel, humanitarian NGOs.
Lawyers and civil rights groups were mentioned as well, I'm wondering if EFF was included in that.
---
Tice previously played off his unclassified resume's listing of space-based systems expertise as a cover story for his activities at NSA. However, he has now revealed that he specialized in space-based capabilities at NSA all along. This is humorous when you consider the following:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/nsa-whistlebl-2/
Do you have any connection to outer space stuff? I asked.
"I watch Buck Rogers."
---
Also of note: NSA's Bluffdale, Utah data storage facility is apparently already online and operational.
So they are spying the very people that are supposed to watch over them and keep them in check? Well that must be very convenient.
It's one of the many reasons General Alexander is regarded among conspiracy theorists as 'supreme leader' of the USG -- he has the ability to blackmail everybody with 100% effectiveness.
He stands at a very interesting intersection between civilian leadership (head of the NSA) and military leadership (head of US CyberCommand).
He stands at a very interesting intersection between civilian leadership (head of the NSA) and military leadership (head of US CyberCommand).
Based on the incredible amount of ass-kissing during the congressional testimony a few days ago, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true.
There are a few who stand at odds with the party line, for example during the congressional hearings in the past couple of weeks Senator Tom Udall (D, New Mexico) notably has been very active in discussing NSA programs rather than attacking Snowden's credibility.
https://twitter.com/SenatorTomUdall
https://twitter.com/SenatorTomUdall
Technically the NSA is a part of the DOD. They assist the ODNI which is civilian, although its leadership role is limited.
So they would have pulled a page out from FBI's playbook. It would not be surprising.
NSA's Bluffdale, Utah data storage facility is apparently already online and operational.
Does the interview mention how someone who left the NSA in 2005 would know this?
Does the interview mention how someone who left the NSA in 2005 would know this?
Yes, he said an insider sent him a coded handwritten message on a basis similar to a one-time pad.
He also said that he could not read most of said message due to misplacing the key-code.
EDIT: My original reply likely butchered terminology, sorry. The relevant audio can be heard verbatim at 1:03:11 in the interview recording.
He also said that he could not read most of said message due to misplacing the key-code.
EDIT: My original reply likely butchered terminology, sorry. The relevant audio can be heard verbatim at 1:03:11 in the interview recording.
If the OTP was used to encrypt the message, it's usefulness is already gone.
A source inside the NSA that re-uses a onetime pad would be pretty ironic.
Maybe Tice reads newspapers. Use of the datacenter would be nearly impossible to conceal. One can look at the power feeds with an IR camera and arrive at a reasonable estimate of power consumption. Also, water vapor from cooling equipment.
This isn't hard to believe. The scheduled "go live" time for the Utah facility was September 2013.
Any major media outlet in the country right now could 1.5-3x its pageviews or audience share by going wall-to-wall on the revelation that NSA spied on Barack Obama before he was a candidate. None of them have. Why is that?
I would say 1) this revelation is too shocking to be parroted without smoking gun evidence to support it (eg copies of the top secret documents themselves) and 2) journalists these days are too much in bed with the establishment to stir the waters that much and ask these kinds of hard questions posed by "fringe elements".
What do you think?
What do you think?
I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused. It would be one thing to argue that some specific venue, like the NYT, is captured somehow (that would be an extraordinary claim but let's stipulate it). But to say that every major media outlet is somehow blinded to its own incentives on a story like this? That's flatly implausible.
I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused.
Name three.
Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, the crew at Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales). Who else? It's a pretty short list.
I can't think of any remaining "mainstream" (corporate) journalists. They've all gotten the Dan Rather treatment.
Some bloggers have managed to swim upstream, eg Paul Krugman and Matthew Yglesias. But most muckraking work (eg Fire Dog Lake) is not corporate funded. Thom Hartmann is kinda unique. And lefties like Rachel Maddow are commentators, not doing original reporting.
Name three.
Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, the crew at Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales). Who else? It's a pretty short list.
I can't think of any remaining "mainstream" (corporate) journalists. They've all gotten the Dan Rather treatment.
Some bloggers have managed to swim upstream, eg Paul Krugman and Matthew Yglesias. But most muckraking work (eg Fire Dog Lake) is not corporate funded. Thom Hartmann is kinda unique. And lefties like Rachel Maddow are commentators, not doing original reporting.
Wasn't this entire thing started by "corporate funded" journalists at the Guardian and Washington Post?
The Guardian is, by their own admission, a center-left paper. That's in Britain, which means they are somewhere between "radical" and "terrorist mooslim communisocialifascist" here in the US. The person who broke the stuff for them is very strongly political. [2]
US corporate media, on the other hand, subscribes to the "view from nowhere" style [3], which they mistake for objectivity. It makes them easily manipulated; when you create a controversy, they are obliged to move away from it. That gets you the classic, "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ: Round or Flat?" journalism. [4]
This is compounded by the way newspaper journalism has been in decline for years, and was even before the Internet drank their milkshake. [5] Now, major newspapers feel very vulnerable, and one of their few remaining assets is that people in power will talk to them. That makes them basically stenographers to power. [6]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Political_stance_a... [2] http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-tw... [3] http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-question... [4] http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/08/opinions_on_sha.html [5] http://davidsimon.com/do-you-know-who-i-am/#comment-6754 [6] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/our-media-stenogra...
US corporate media, on the other hand, subscribes to the "view from nowhere" style [3], which they mistake for objectivity. It makes them easily manipulated; when you create a controversy, they are obliged to move away from it. That gets you the classic, "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ: Round or Flat?" journalism. [4]
This is compounded by the way newspaper journalism has been in decline for years, and was even before the Internet drank their milkshake. [5] Now, major newspapers feel very vulnerable, and one of their few remaining assets is that people in power will talk to them. That makes them basically stenographers to power. [6]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Political_stance_a... [2] http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-tw... [3] http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-question... [4] http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/08/opinions_on_sha.html [5] http://davidsimon.com/do-you-know-who-i-am/#comment-6754 [6] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/our-media-stenogra...
So yes, US journalism's objectivity is often horrible, but the owners of The Guardian are overseeing an enterprise with revenues of £254.4 million a year, according to Wikipedia. That still seems like a corporate enterprise the owners of whom would want to protect. I believe it is still be possible to be a muckraker (or employ those who are like Greenwald) and have a sizable "corporate"-ness.
The difference is editorial independence. You know this.
The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, a few others, are in no way comparable to properties owned by media conglomerates. You know this.
If not "corporate", how would you refer to likes of News Corp, Clear Channel, Time Warner, Disney, etc? "Purveyors of propaganda for the power elite?" "Anti-democratic radical right wing noise echo chambers?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media
"Corporate media" is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. It is sometimes used as a term of derision to indicate a media system which does not serve the public interest in place of the mainstream media or "MSM," which tends to be used by both the political left and the right as a derisive term.
The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, a few others, are in no way comparable to properties owned by media conglomerates. You know this.
If not "corporate", how would you refer to likes of News Corp, Clear Channel, Time Warner, Disney, etc? "Purveyors of propaganda for the power elite?" "Anti-democratic radical right wing noise echo chambers?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media
"Corporate media" is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. It is sometimes used as a term of derision to indicate a media system which does not serve the public interest in place of the mainstream media or "MSM," which tends to be used by both the political left and the right as a derisive term.
Note that the Washington Post went to the government to cooperate with them. It is not clear if WaPo would have published the same story if there wasn't a competitor (the Guardian) who had access to the same material. Snowden may have shared material with the Guardian purposefully either before or after he found out the WaPo was working the government in order to ensure this.
Note also that Greenwald has special circumstances which reduce his influence from corporate and US interests. First he works for a subsidiary of a UK corporation and does not report on UK issues. I also don't think he reports on corporate issues that would affect Guardian advertising. Finally, he lives in Brazil which may reduce US influence on him.
All that said no one is saying that corporate journalists never break stories that are critical to government or corporations, only that they are under strong influence not to and the effect is that few such stories are produced.
Note also that Greenwald has special circumstances which reduce his influence from corporate and US interests. First he works for a subsidiary of a UK corporation and does not report on UK issues. I also don't think he reports on corporate issues that would affect Guardian advertising. Finally, he lives in Brazil which may reduce US influence on him.
All that said no one is saying that corporate journalists never break stories that are critical to government or corporations, only that they are under strong influence not to and the effect is that few such stories are produced.
If the US media is inhibited from running stories about sensational overreaches by NSA, how did James Risen and Eric Lichtblau manage to get the SOLARWIND story published?
They are not inhibited, they are positively and negatively incentivized. To say that the government and high-level government officials are a powerful influence is hardly contentious.
If you talk shit about your boss (even if it is true and done politely) it will probably negatively affect you. If you support your boss you will probably reap rewards. The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does.
If you talk shit about your boss (even if it is true and done politely) it will probably negatively affect you. If you support your boss you will probably reap rewards. The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does.
I'm not sure this is really responsive to my point: I gave a specific example of a bombshell story the NYT ran that was arguably more harmful to "national security" than any revelation about spying on Barack Obama.
In that case you are going to have to make your point explicit. My understanding is that you are trying to say that the media outlets are not influenced by the government because there exist significant critical stories of the government.
But as I said "The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does."
But as I said "The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does."
I guess I'm just asking why today's story, about NSA spying on Obama, which is viscerally more interesting than the Risen story but less impactful to national security, would be "frozen out" of the mainstream media where Risen's story clearly wasn't.
The NYT had the SOLARWIND story in 2004, and were going to publish it right before the 04 election (October) but sat on it under pressure from the administration. It was over a year before they decided to publish.
The story is told by Eric Lichtblau here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric...
Key quote:
> AMY GOODMAN: Is it right, Eric, you were still — the Times wasn’t going to run this story until to your colleague Jim at the New York Times was going to publish his book, and that put the Times in a tremendously awkward position? It’s going to come out anyway, and their reporters are not the ones who are going to reveal it.
> ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, that’s true, for the most part.
I don't know if this is the right example to support your argument.
The story is told by Eric Lichtblau here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric...
Key quote:
> AMY GOODMAN: Is it right, Eric, you were still — the Times wasn’t going to run this story until to your colleague Jim at the New York Times was going to publish his book, and that put the Times in a tremendously awkward position? It’s going to come out anyway, and their reporters are not the ones who are going to reveal it.
> ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, that’s true, for the most part.
I don't know if this is the right example to support your argument.
Don't interrupt rant. It serves no purpose and makes them cranky.
You could say the same thing about the suppressed NYT NSA story a few years back. Incentives are more complicated than short term profits of the firm. Being in the good graces of powerful government actors is certainly a strong incentive in terms of personal benefits and long term profits.
Given the above, and not making any judgment as to the veracity of the claim, there isn't enough evidence for mainstream media to publish. Compare with allegation of the Syrian government's use of Sarin for which there is equally little evidence but media outlets are quick to publish because it is inline with government interests.
Given the above, and not making any judgment as to the veracity of the claim, there isn't enough evidence for mainstream media to publish. Compare with allegation of the Syrian government's use of Sarin for which there is equally little evidence but media outlets are quick to publish because it is inline with government interests.
Is there a single major media outlet --- The New York Times, The Washington Post (which is already out in front of this story), The Wall Street Journal (a Murdoch paper), The Washington Times (a strongly partisan anti-Obama paper), Bloomberg News, heck, Le Monde --- a single one that appears to be taking this story seriously? Why not? Is your argument that every reputable major media outlet in the world is somehow cowed by the administration?
There is systemic influence by the US government on US institutions. To be clear I am only speaking to media influence and bias, not the veracity of the claim in question. Again look at the sarin example or consider how readily this would have been reported if it were about an enemy of the United States.
Your point about international media outlets is taken and it is the best evidence of how less-biased outlets feel about the story. I can't find the story on Russia Today or Al-Jazeera for example.
Your point about international media outlets is taken and it is the best evidence of how less-biased outlets feel about the story. I can't find the story on Russia Today or Al-Jazeera for example.
I have a pretty high opinion of Al Jazeera, which has not run a story about how the NSA might have spied on pre-candidate Barack Obama, and a very very low opinion of Russia Today, which is likely to have at some point in the past run a story about how Obama is actually a space alien.
My point had nothing to do with the credibility of either of those outlets only that they both routinely publish stories critical of the United States and since they didn't publish this story then they must not have faith in it.
In short, I agree with you that lack of reporting from foreign outlets is indicative that they think there isn't enough evidence to report it.
Just to be clear we are talking about different things: You are talking about whether the claims are true, or more sensibly, whether they are supported by credible evidence. I am making a more narrow point about the fact that media institutions are strongly influenced^ by government and corporate interests. That is true independent of whether Tice's claims are.
^ Obviously foreign institutions are far less influenced by other foreign governments and are therefore more reliable when reporting on those foreign governments, though not always (e.g. Iraq WMD claims).
In short, I agree with you that lack of reporting from foreign outlets is indicative that they think there isn't enough evidence to report it.
Just to be clear we are talking about different things: You are talking about whether the claims are true, or more sensibly, whether they are supported by credible evidence. I am making a more narrow point about the fact that media institutions are strongly influenced^ by government and corporate interests. That is true independent of whether Tice's claims are.
^ Obviously foreign institutions are far less influenced by other foreign governments and are therefore more reliable when reporting on those foreign governments, though not always (e.g. Iraq WMD claims).
It is not reasonable to think that corporate journalists advance their careers, using money and social benefits as proxies for career advancement, by speaking truth to power any more than it would be for other careers. In nearly all cases you advance your career by being conformist and supporting powerful people. There isn't any reason for corporate journalism to be different.
You mean except for every journalist who has raised the ire of a Presidential administration in the US by going public with some detail or another of overreaching surveillance, malfeasance within the administration, abuse of prisoners, waste in defense spending (added bonus here of pissing off multibillion dollar corporations with deep ties to media outlets), foreign relations blunders, or leaks of one form or another?
Why is this story off limits but those stories not?
Why is this story off limits but those stories not?
If there are still substantial disparities between what Snowden alleges and what major tech firms admit to, would you bet against news outlets getting "D-notices" they are not allowed to discuss?
This could easily be misinformation. That said, Russ Tice has more credibility than you do when it comes to talking about NSA capabilities, in that his claims of unconstitutional spying (dating back to 2005) anticipated and are well-supported by the leaked NSA documentation, while your claims dating two weeks back about how everything is operating under reasonable judicial oversight have already been proven wrong.
I don't understand what my credibility has to do with the question I asked. This is the rare example of a genuinely fallacious (if gently posed) ad-hominem argument.
Your post attacks Tice's credibility by implying that if his claim was legitimate, this news would be covered more broadly. Since there is not yet a story in the NYT about this, his claim must not be legitimate, right?
Leaving aside the interesting questions about how and why the media is covering this story, if you are attacking Tice on the grounds that his claims are not credible, you are in a weak position given that his previous claims on this matter have been very publicly vindicated in the past two weeks, while yours have been demonstrated wrong again and again.
My post was an ad-hominem attack (but not an ill-intentioned one) because I continue to be mystified how you can repeatedly insist there is no story "here". Does it not BOTHER you that your government is claiming the privilege to conduct at-will surveillance of anyone based on suspicion of a crime? Or the very visible way these tools and others have been used to intimidate the press over the past few months and cover-up official wrong-doing? What about excessive levels of government secrecy (which of the documents released to date do you consider sensitive enough not to merit public discussion)?
What exactly needs to be happen in this story for you to stop defending the status quo?
Leaving aside the interesting questions about how and why the media is covering this story, if you are attacking Tice on the grounds that his claims are not credible, you are in a weak position given that his previous claims on this matter have been very publicly vindicated in the past two weeks, while yours have been demonstrated wrong again and again.
My post was an ad-hominem attack (but not an ill-intentioned one) because I continue to be mystified how you can repeatedly insist there is no story "here". Does it not BOTHER you that your government is claiming the privilege to conduct at-will surveillance of anyone based on suspicion of a crime? Or the very visible way these tools and others have been used to intimidate the press over the past few months and cover-up official wrong-doing? What about excessive levels of government secrecy (which of the documents released to date do you consider sensitive enough not to merit public discussion)?
What exactly needs to be happen in this story for you to stop defending the status quo?
Now, instead of addressing my question, you're making up motives for me to have asked the question in the first place and assaulting those motives.
Your credibility has everything to do with the way you continually trivialize this story and attempt to discredit anyone who accuses the government of wrong-doing. But if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance?
Thomas has regularly made meaningful & insightful contributions to the hacker news community.
I don't know what your vendetta is against him, but please- take ad-hominem attacks back to reddit. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I do find his perspective more interesting then your attacks.
I don't know what your vendetta is against him, but please- take ad-hominem attacks back to reddit. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I do find his perspective more interesting then your attacks.
Here you continue to push the same line of argument which has nothing to do with the question I asked, or even in challenging the validity of the question itself, in attempt to personalize the issue instead of discussing it. No major media outlet is taking my credibility into account before making editorial decisions.
> but if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance?
If I had to bet, he probably got bored after he stopped beating his wife. When did you embark on your hobby of begging questions?
If I had to bet, he probably got bored after he stopped beating his wife. When did you embark on your hobby of begging questions?
Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not yet expressed this opinion and I do not see why he cannot unless he disagrees with it.
We should be able to interrogate news stories without requiring everyone on the thread to declare their biases; in fact, overtly avoiding those declarations seems like good "thread discipline" to me. Are we talking about the facts and issues that follow from the facts, or are we echoing our biases off each other?
I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.
I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.
>you continually trivialize this story
He's certainly not doing that here.
He's certainly not doing that here.
trevalyan did address your question about credibility. In trevalyan's view, your claims here over the last couple weeks have been "have been demonstrated wrong again and again", and that you've shown a pattern of "claiming there's no story here." And I don't see any attribution of motives.
EDIT: (which doesn't mean I think your original question is wrong)
EDIT: (which doesn't mean I think your original question is wrong)
What does my credibility have to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on Tice's claim that NSA spied on pre-candidate Obama? I don't understand your observation here at all. My point was that my track record of comments has nothing to do with the answer to the question.
If you or 'trevelyan believe I'm wrong, and that there is or will soon be major media coverage about this story, or that major media coverage doesn't signify anything, you can say that.
If you or 'trevelyan believe I'm wrong, and that there is or will soon be major media coverage about this story, or that major media coverage doesn't signify anything, you can say that.
Your credibility doesn't have anything to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on this. It's a good question.
However your credibility will inevitably influence how people respond to the question and the answer. For example, if hypothetically somebody has shown a pattern of saying "there's no story here", using whatever rhetorical technique works best in a given situation to support your views, and then frequently being shown wrong when it turns out there genuinely is a story here even though some of the initial details were incorrect or had insufficent evidence ... well, in that case, others would very reasonably take past history into account when they see the same pattern coming up.
I have no idea whether there or not there will be major media coverage about the story. The lack of coverage so far implies to me that (a) there isn't yet sufficient supporting evidence or documentation for this and (b) there are enough real disclosures that people are being careful about airing insufficiently supported claims and (c) it hasn't gotten to "Obama birth certificate" levels of significant attention even though there's not sufficient supporting evidence.
However your credibility will inevitably influence how people respond to the question and the answer. For example, if hypothetically somebody has shown a pattern of saying "there's no story here", using whatever rhetorical technique works best in a given situation to support your views, and then frequently being shown wrong when it turns out there genuinely is a story here even though some of the initial details were incorrect or had insufficent evidence ... well, in that case, others would very reasonably take past history into account when they see the same pattern coming up.
I have no idea whether there or not there will be major media coverage about the story. The lack of coverage so far implies to me that (a) there isn't yet sufficient supporting evidence or documentation for this and (b) there are enough real disclosures that people are being careful about airing insufficiently supported claims and (c) it hasn't gotten to "Obama birth certificate" levels of significant attention even though there's not sufficient supporting evidence.
No. I think you're right and that there isn't enough to substantiate this story for a mainstream publication relying on two-source verification to risk publishing it. This is why I agreed off-the-bat that it might be disinformation.
That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past.
And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.
That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past.
And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.
You are not entitled to an "official" statement of my ideological beliefs.
Then stop complaining when other people read your beliefs into what you do deign to share with the community.
No? What you just said doesn't follow logically from anything else we've discussed on the thread. If the question is invalid, shoot down the question.
I'm not complaining that you've somehow hurt my feelings by pursuing your own notion of what's in my head. You're an anonymous commenter; I don't care what you think about me. I'm complaining that we're unable to address simple questions without personalizing them. Like I said: this is an actual instance of the ad-hominem fallacy. My question doesn't get more or less valid based on my ideology.
I'm not complaining that you've somehow hurt my feelings by pursuing your own notion of what's in my head. You're an anonymous commenter; I don't care what you think about me. I'm complaining that we're unable to address simple questions without personalizing them. Like I said: this is an actual instance of the ad-hominem fallacy. My question doesn't get more or less valid based on my ideology.
"Why did nobody cover that" -- how can that be answered by anyone but the media the question is about, what can anyone here do other than speculate? Yet even that already happened, the first line of the first response of the other poster was "This could easily be misinformation". So much for sitting on the high horse in glass houses?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...
Not exactly a major media outlet. But it's something.
Not exactly a major media outlet. But it's something.
Because they have no evidence beyond Russell Tice's statements. And no other person has stepped forward to corroborate.
Sure, but they have to believe they're never going to get that corroboration until the story gets some legs. Why aren't they "reporting the controversy"?
I don't know. I'm sure, or at least I hope someone is looking into it. It's not an easy discussion to have. It requires most people to reconsider a lot of things that they take for granted (things we'd all like to take for granted). The alternatives aren't pretty. Maybe some journalists are fearful.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
There are a couple of weak justifications that could be made, but you pretty quickly wind up in conspiracy territory. Not that this is unprecedented, but most people quickly dismiss anything from anyone who sounds like they are advancing a gov't conspiracy theory. You don't want to put things like that out without a firm footing.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
There are a couple of weak justifications that could be made, but you pretty quickly wind up in conspiracy territory. Not that this is unprecedented, but most people quickly dismiss anything from anyone who sounds like they are advancing a gov't conspiracy theory. You don't want to put things like that out without a firm footing.
For what reason(s) should/would the NSA spy on so many politicians?
I agree that this is another problem with his story; cui bono? This would be an extremely high-profile, probably criminal overreach by the NSA, of a person who had nothing resembling the public profile he has today, to what benefit?
I agree that this is another problem with his story; cui bono? This would be an extremely high-profile, probably criminal overreach by the NSA, of a person who had nothing resembling the public profile he has today, to what benefit?
There are a couple of plausible scenarios -
(1) the NSA was running surveillance on all political challengers,
(2) Obama was running against Alan Keyes who had ties to the state department and served on the staff of the National Security Council under Reagan so he could easily have had spook connections, maybe he called in some favors looking for dirt on his opponent.
Starting from about 25:00 in the interview he gives examples why. Everybody can listen an make an opinion.
Claims like this may be more convincing when they are supported by evidence.
The people of the United States are innocent until proven guilt. Their government does not deserve the same benefit of the doubt.
So you automatically assume any allegation leveled against the government to be true until someone in the government spends effort disproving it?
Is it really so much to ask that we criticize the government for things that we know it actually did?
Is it really so much to ask that we criticize the government for things that we know it actually did?
Evidence is mounting that agencies within the US gov't are up to no good. Given that the main one is the NSA, an agency with a fair amount of expertise at keeping secrets; it shouldn't be a surprise that great smoking guns of evidence aren't bursting from within the place.
Not any, definitely not all, but the government's lack of transparency and recent actions means that we doubt it to the core.
Also, "we know it actually did" is a terrifying thought when the government decides to hide whatever it wants whenever it wants. How will we ever know?
Because our government is made of bricks?
No, because the majority of people in power (and a few of their minions) have immunity, both legal and practical. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to them if they can't be prosecuted to begin with.
Yes I know this isn't a legal argument, but if someone receives immunity for actions that would otherwise be unacceptable they should not receive the benefit of the doubt when accused. The burden should be on them to prove they deserve our continued trust.
Yes I know this isn't a legal argument, but if someone receives immunity for actions that would otherwise be unacceptable they should not receive the benefit of the doubt when accused. The burden should be on them to prove they deserve our continued trust.
[deleted]
Russell Tice on MSNBC this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKyIil9OdF4#t=0m04s
OT: What's stopping NSA staff from wiretapping CEOs and use that info for insider trading making a bundle?
What's to stop the NSA from wiretapping foreign companies, then handing their trade secrets over to well-connected US companies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
All these are possible. They can use the profit from the stock market to get the funds to hire mercenaries, i.e. defense contractors in Iraq to then silence anyone who ties to expose them.
That's why any business outside US needs to move their stuff from the NSA backyard.
Isn't every potential US president scanned from tip to toe?
Security clearance involves being wiretapped these days?
And how would that remotely explain Powell, who would have been cleared to the highest levels decades before this program?
And how would that remotely explain Powell, who would have been cleared to the highest levels decades before this program?
One would hope, but by the press and the American people...
Background checks and surveillance are two different things.
To get security clearance, yes.
The President doesn't need a security clearance. His or her election gives him/her the ultimate security clearance.
Not elected officials like the President. They are exempt from the OPM/USIS investigations.
That implies that if a candidate could be denied a clearance they would be disqualified from holding office.
You know, I've always thought that the Barack "Hussein" Obama political attacks that allege that he's not a citizen, he's a muslim, and he's part of some conspiracy to bring down the USA are particularly crazy insomuch as we have the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. whose job is to investigate people to keep our country safe.
I've always thought that if the allegations were somehow true, that someone at one of those groups would have leaked something that would keep Obama from being president or from continuing as president. Yet, that never happened despite the fact that he obviously would have been investigated by plenty of people in those spy organizations.
So, the fact that Obama was spied on should not come as a surprise. It would surprise me if people in power weren't spied on.
I've always thought that if the allegations were somehow true, that someone at one of those groups would have leaked something that would keep Obama from being president or from continuing as president. Yet, that never happened despite the fact that he obviously would have been investigated by plenty of people in those spy organizations.
So, the fact that Obama was spied on should not come as a surprise. It would surprise me if people in power weren't spied on.
Maybe it's not surprising, but it's bad. It puts the non-elected agency officials in a position of power over the people who are supposed to be their bosses and make sure they aren't going out of line. It basically nullifies a lot of checks and balances if the agency officials want to blackmail or threaten to blackmail elected officials.
Not to mention that the state spying on its citizens without probable cause and judicial review is unconstitutional, illegal and anti-democratic.
I don't think the Constitution really made it into this century with us. Sad really. The footnotes and exceptions on the Bill of Rights due to executive orders is probably longer than the whole Constitution.
Or they found something and use it against him to keep him in check and get what they want.
This system is all about control and preserve power.
This system is all about control and preserve power.
So if spying on people in power is good, who spies on the people in charge of the NSA?
It kind of makes you rethink the whole Petraeus ordeal. Everyone commented on how the director of the CIA couldn't keep his own communications secret. Maybe he pissed off the NSA somehow? Not sure how closely the organizations work together.
China.
Their employees.
The Watchmen.
But wait, who watches..
But wait, who watches..
It is up to us.
Maybe. But someone who would have been disqualified from the presidency might prove useful to those who hold the information. It would explain the 180 on Gitmo, ferinstance.
What 180 on Gitmo? Obama's stance on it has never waivered, congress blocked his attempts to close it.
He's still the commander in chief and he could still order the end to the detainment program even if he can't cause the base to be closed. And yet he didn't.
Sounds like you're criticizing him for not solving a problem that you fail to even understand. No, he cannot fix this by himself, it requires the cooperation of congress as well as either other countries or other prisons willing to take those who can't be released and he's gotten no cooperation in attempting to close it. The "commander in chief" is not as powerful as you seem to think he is.
Without funds to move them, what would he do with the former prisoners? Just let them sleep and starve on the streets of Guantanamo?
It supposedly cost the Clinton administration some $42 million for a 12 day trip to Africa (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/india-on-200-m...). That same article suggests that today it might cost double or triple the $3.6mm/day for Obama to make a trip. Lets go easy and suggest it's only $5mm per day.
Obama regularly makes trips to various parts of the world for at least a few days. Let's say that for the rest of his presidency he spends ten days less on the road. That's $50mm saved.
Wikipedia says there are around 50 permanently detained persons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#D...
That leaves around $1mm per detainee to wind down gitmo. I know it's the government so everything is expensive (especially when the military is concerned) but I don't remember commercial flights costing anywhere near $1mm each. Let's say we fly them first class, that's $20k per person, tops. Add in $50k of cash we just hand to them in a bribe to not hate us forever (foolish I know, but what they hell!) a grand for the travel agent, a couple grand for new clothes and such, and that leaves over $900k for lawyering.
Seems fairly doable to me.
Obama regularly makes trips to various parts of the world for at least a few days. Let's say that for the rest of his presidency he spends ten days less on the road. That's $50mm saved.
Wikipedia says there are around 50 permanently detained persons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#D...
That leaves around $1mm per detainee to wind down gitmo. I know it's the government so everything is expensive (especially when the military is concerned) but I don't remember commercial flights costing anywhere near $1mm each. Let's say we fly them first class, that's $20k per person, tops. Add in $50k of cash we just hand to them in a bribe to not hate us forever (foolish I know, but what they hell!) a grand for the travel agent, a couple grand for new clothes and such, and that leaves over $900k for lawyering.
Seems fairly doable to me.
He could make a deal with their home countries and the government of Cuba, and send them home. Why does he need extra money to free them?
Because nothing in life is free.
Even if their home countries were to agree to foot the bill for airfare back to their home countries, how are you going to get them to agree to that? You'd need someone to negotiate details. That someone costs money.
Detainees will need to be processed by customs before being released. Custom's officers don't work for free. Do detainees even have their passports? Where are replacement passports going to come from, and who's going to pay for that?
Whatever your views on Guantanamo Bay, to think that it's not going to cost anything is simply naive. That's not to say that sufficiently motivated home countries couldn't pay for it, but it's going to cost someone somewhere.
Even if their home countries were to agree to foot the bill for airfare back to their home countries, how are you going to get them to agree to that? You'd need someone to negotiate details. That someone costs money.
Detainees will need to be processed by customs before being released. Custom's officers don't work for free. Do detainees even have their passports? Where are replacement passports going to come from, and who's going to pay for that?
Whatever your views on Guantanamo Bay, to think that it's not going to cost anything is simply naive. That's not to say that sufficiently motivated home countries couldn't pay for it, but it's going to cost someone somewhere.
If the government can bail out American banks, it can send a few detainees back home on its own nickel.
Except if the home countries won't take them. Or if they will execute them if given the chance.
Nothing in politics (or life, even) is simple, so you might as well start by assuming it's hard and conclude it's simple after you've eliminated all the things that could make it hard, rather than the other way around.
Nothing in politics (or life, even) is simple, so you might as well start by assuming it's hard and conclude it's simple after you've eliminated all the things that could make it hard, rather than the other way around.
Maybe he could do the same thing he did to fund NATO attack on Libya, reroute Pentagon discretionary funds. I don't know if that's feasible, but I find it funny that he can find ways to do a double backflip to fund things he really really wants to get funded but then just throws it back in our faces on Guantanamo.
I have a vague recollection that Congress actually explicitly prohibited spending money on Guantanamo closure, rather than just neglecting to allocate it. I could be way off, but that would be the difference if so.
Maybe ask for private-sector volunteers to help evacuate them?
I'm not saying any of this is good, I'm saying it's not surprising.
If you really want to think like a conspiracy theorist, then they would LET him win so that they had a completely controllable puppet in office.
Regarding the idea that someone would have leaked something, WorldNetDaily seems to get a lot of leaks from the CIA. This raises several questions about any of these stories starting with how fake is it, what kind of person would leak to WND, and are they trying to plant a story or suppress one?
[deleted]
I think this calls for a meme.
http://qkme.me/3uxsx0
http://qkme.me/3uxsx0
As she went through the proper channels to report what she had seen, she was eventually fired as a result of her allegations [3]. Her testimony was also sealed by John Ashcroft under the states secrets privilege [4], which is exactly what has happened with the recent Snowden allegations [5].
Personally I think Sibel Edmonds is one of the most reliable people in the whistleblower community and that she has a lot to say that's being hidden from the public.
[1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/sibel-edmonds-patriot-...
[2] http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#cite_note-oig_upd...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#FBI_career
[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-sp...