Patterico's Pontifications

6/25/2013

Snowden Buying Unfriendly Countries’ Cooperation with Information

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:34 pm



Allahpundit on reports that Snowden is paying off hostile countries by revealing our secrets:

This is why it gets stupider by the day to say that the story of his escape is merely a distraction from the far more important story of U.S. surveillance capabilities. How is it “distracting” to know there’s a guy running around in China and Russia with huge stores of state secrets, essentially blackmailing the government to let him leak selectively with impunity or else he’ll leak indiscriminately? On what planet is that a non-story?

It depends upon what you think is important. If you’re wedded to the narrative of Snowden-as-hero, then he Struck a Blow for Truth and Justice, and it hardly matters that he is furnishing unfriendly countries with information that has zero to do with exposing surveillance of U.S. citizens — but gives those countries a propaganda victory, or perhaps something even more valuable, like a technical roadmap of our surveillance network. To make a whistleblower omelet, you gotta crack open a few choice secrets for our enemies, to encourage them to facilitate your escape from the country you’re trying to save. As Rick Ellers says, Snowden needed to “ingratiate” himself:

Greenwald said he would not have published some of the stories that ran in the South China Morning Post. “Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don’t think I would have,” Greenwald said. “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.”

But I’m sure Mr. Putin isn’t requiring much from Snowden in the way of information.

By the way, Dersh has some pretty harsh words for Ellison (Via Hot Air Headlines):

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, it doesn’t border on criminality — it’s right in the heartland of criminality. The statute itself, does punish the publication of classified material, if you know that it’s classified. And so, Greenwald — in my view — clearly has committed a felony.

And for him to take umbrage at the question — now, he’s right though that the government doesn’t usually go after the publishers. They don’t go after The New York Times, The Washington Post, in the Pentagon papers case, though they could have! They don’t go after other newspapers — in the WikiLeaks case — though they could have. They’ve made a discretionary decision to go after the leaker but not the publisher.

Look, Greenwald’s a total phony. He is anti-American, he loves tyrannical regimes, and he did this because he hates America. This had nothing to do with publicizing information. He never would’ve written this article if they had published material about one of his favorite countries.

The more I learn about Snowden, the more I find his actions distasteful — and I haven’t seen anything he revealed that is obviously a violation of the Fourth Amendment. When media outlets broke the SWIFT story during Bush’s tenure, I was outraged. While I was torn about prosecuting the journalists, I wanted to explore whether the journalists should be prosecuted if they knowingly helped reveal classified information about an effective and legal program — and I leaned slightly towards the view that prosecution was wise. Tell me why I should not feel the same way about this. I know it’s very fashionable to say that it’s unthinkable to “prosecute journalists for journalism” — but if national security information is legitimately classified, helps us fight terrorism, and is knowingly revealed by a “journalist,” I don’t know that such actions are obviously beyond prosecution.

As I said in 2006, a lot of it comes down to whether the journalist is exposing wrongdoing or whether they are just telling our secrets. Often they think they are doing the former when they are just doing the latter.

Does a spy get to be a hero if he is revealing secrets to “We the People” as well as Russia and China to buy off their cooperation?

UPDATE: Thomas Ellers weighs in:

 

Sockpuppet
I’m too SUPER-IMPORTANT to be prosecuted. So good DAY, sir!

 

122 Responses to “Snowden Buying Unfriendly Countries’ Cooperation with Information”

  1. Tell me where I’m wrong.

    I have a feeling people will be lining up to do so. But that’s OK. That’s why there’s a comment section.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. He did himself no favors by picking The Gleeeeeens as his spokesnozzle.

    JD (b63a52)

  3. Hee Hee, the gleen puppet.

    There’s plenty to,be concerned about re fourth amendment issues, and evidence that sharper lines need to be drawn about what any agency and especially the NSA might trawl or seek access to related to domestic persons private dealings.

    It hardly matters who or what Snowden is, except in his capacity of dramatis personae in a cautionary tale that steyn laid out a week ago.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  4. Maybe your Fourth Amendment analysis, but mine could be outdated. Also, I honestly thought “foreign surveillance” meant foreign surveillance, so I’m naive as well.

    Otherwise, I agree. Snowden is not cute anymore. He has crossed the line. Greenwald has always creeped me out.

    nk (875f57)

  5. Congratulations to newly elected Mass. Senator Markey. Blech. So great to see that still another once retired has-been is returning to public service. Do the democrats have any candidates under 70? Any fresh young up and comers? Well, except for Anthony Weiner of course.

    elissa (c6f8c4)

  6. Snowden Buying Unfriendly Countries’ Cooperation with Information

    I believe I was ahead of the power curve on this one.

    So I’ll get ahead of the power curve and assert (again) that Snowden is going to embarrass his fan club.

    I ask again; why is anyone falling for this guy’s act?

    The Snowden fan club reminds me of nothing more than the members of the 2008 Obama fan club Romney tried to woo. They knew by 2012 that candidate Obama circa 2008 was a bill of goods. But they just couldn’t admit they’d been had.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  7. 5. Do the democrats have any candidates under 70? Any fresh young up and comers? Well, except for Anthony Weiner of course.

    Comment by elissa (c6f8c4) — 6/25/2013 @ 7:07 pm

    Thanks for the mental imagery, elissa.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  8. By the way, Dersh has some pretty harsh words for Ellison

    It’s always refreshing when people of the left, such as Dershowitz, throttle a bit of their liberal impulses and allow a ray of light — a bit of common sense — into their noggin.

    By contrast, I can’t stand the liberals who are miffed about Snowden not because he’s revealed secrets that make the US look bad — that may have harmed national security — but because he’s done something that makes the left look bad (eg, Obama and the symbolism that goes with him).

    newsbusters.org, April 2013: Appearing on NewsmaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show, Dershowitz said, “I don’t understand the way some people on the Left glorify American terrorists”

    STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Robert Redford before this bombing [in Boston] was on Good Morning America, and he made a movie about the Weather Underground, and he was specifically asked by George Stephanopoulos, “You were followers of them. You kind of rooted for them?” He said, “I don’t know if I wanted a revolution, but I did admire them.” And Stephanopoulos said, “What about the violence?” And he said, “Sometimes you have to have violence.” And you got William Ayers who’s glorified. So, I mean, there’s a big hypocrisy in this country too.

    ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Oh, it’s more than hypocrisy. Look at Kathy Boudin is now teaching at Columbia. And Angela Davis has had a distinguished career teaching. Ayers and his wife. These are all people who were terrorists.

    MALZBERG: Would you agree no difference between them and this kid [Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]?

    DERSHOWITZ: They’re much worse because they’re much better educated and had all the privileges in the world. So I see them as much, much worse. And I don’t understand the way some people on the Left glorify American terrorists without realizing that, you know, it’s indistinguishable morally from the kinds of terrorism we’re condemning here. And I just don’t buy it.

    Mark (67e579)

  9. It hardly matters who or what Snowden is, except in his capacity of dramatis personae in a cautionary tale that steyn laid out a week ago.

    The first block quote in the post is dedicated to responding precisely to what you just said.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. elissa @5, you may not want to link to this.

    A romantic tune that’s definitely Weiner related from back in the day.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-sb8e3P4LM

    YouTube: It’s my **** in a Tweet

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  11. i still do not understand this “our secrets” idea

    piggy piggy nsa spy nazis have their secrets me i have my own ones

    they are very different kinds of secrets

    like for example right now it’s a secret I ordered a kit-cat clock for the office cause of it’s a surprise plus somebody might’ve said no don’t do that

    http://www.kit-cat.com/products-page/all-kit-cat-clocks/

    the piggy piggy nsa spy boys mostly keep secrets about how they’re shamelessly gladys kravitizing all our asses

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  12. Count me with nk because I, too, thought foreign surveillance meant foreign surveillance.

    As for Snowden, he should be punished if he’s done anything wrong but I still think the larger point is the content of the information he leaked. (A related point is why someone so young, inexperienced, and untrustworthy was trusted with information this sensitive.) But the cow is out of the barn and, other than punishing Snowden, the only remedy left is understanding what went wrong and trying to keep it from happening again.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  13. cow never should’ve been stuffed up in the barn in the first place

    cow has places to go and people to see

    moons to jump and instructive cabbages to eat

    and if cow stayed here with you girl

    things just couldn’t be the same

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  14. happyfeet,

    Doctors keep secrets for their patients called confidential medical information.

    Lawyers keep secrets for their clients called confidential legal information.

    Police keep secrets when they investigate crimes to make it harder for suspects to avoid capture and to prevent innocent people from being wrongly implicated.

    The military and intelligence services keep secrets to maximize its ability to surprise our adversaries.

    I’m sure there are more examples but you get the idea.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  15. 15. I’m sure there are more examples but you get the idea.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/25/2013 @ 7:44 pm

    I wish I had your faith in Mr. Feets and those like him, DRJ.

    I’m more inclinced to take him at his word.

    i still do not understand this “our secrets” idea

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  16. happyfeet,

    I’m not your enemy on Snowden. I’m willing to keep an open mind regarding whether he’s a whistleblower, a traitor, or something in between. But right now it’s hard to tell what his motivations are.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  17. we only surprise our adversaries anymore when we do things like equivocate over keystone pipelines for oil they want want want

    or when we spend money like crack whores on a whole lot of silly silly nothing – self-destructive nonsense like that never ceases to surprise our adversaries

    and of course the fact that we’ve dispensed with a free press surprises them a little too

    in short, our slutty coward whore of a country is spreading her legs for adversaries far and wee, but when it involves spying on supposed free americans we’re allo of a sudden supposed to take our sad pitiful joke of a country’s national security super cereal

    if china wants to screw the whore six ways to sunday I say that just shows they have bad bad taste

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. I know today, with the 10-year T-Bill at a 1% over two months ago(Bennie buying them all two weeks after issuance) it may seem over-the-top extreme, but we’re going to be happy to have help in a few toppling our government.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  19. Count me with nk because I, too, thought foreign surveillance meant foreign surveillance.

    I agree.

    I’m just not entirely clear on the extent of reliable evidence that there is domestic surveillance being conducted by the NSA.

    Again: if I don’t trust Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald, what hard evidence do we have?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  20. The one thing we do know is that Clapper (and Holder) lied to Congress, under oath.

    And that makes me nervous about putting extensive powers in their hands.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  21. *all* of a sudden I mean

    oh my goodness I’m nobody’s enemy on snowden DRJ I just wash my hands of this patriotic american crap is all

    i know america and america I love more than beans and pickles but america has nothing to do with our fascist pig government – except for certain well-meaning doofuses who’ve placed themselves in government service

    I’m embarrassed for them but you can’t tell them that bless their hearts

    mostly I buy a LOT of side by side wine – since memorial day when i found out about it

    http://www.sidebysidewine.azaleacharities.com/

    thinking about it helps me remember some of the quasi-patriotic nuances I’d honestly be more or less inclined to dispense with but

    I’m just kinda not ready to do that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  22. I’m not your enemy on Snowden. I’m willing to keep an open mind regarding whether he’s a whistleblower, a traitor, or something in between. But right now it’s hard to tell what his motivations are.

    And I know a couple of people (Icy in particular, as I recall) pooh-poohed my post about his girlfriend — but I am curious: is she still missing?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  23. even though we know how far apart ed and his girlfriend are it helps to think they might be wishing on the same bright star I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  24. 20. “Hard evidence”

    Mark my words, you will be shooting from your residence long before you get hard evidence your government means you harm.

    Now if you refuse to do so, yes, I believe you are more likely to escape government scrutiny.

    But when LA is burning and there’s no water or power to be had I bet you won’t care if the cops show up in a week or two to confiscate.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  25. 21. Clapper is just a designated cretin, he has no comparative power, except to say “Yes, ______, may I have another?”

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  26. Well they do keep him away from any facts, thst he might need to be informed about, not so with Alexander.

    narciso (3fec35)

  27. I haven’t seen anything he revealed that is obviously a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    Patterico–

    I remember back in the 70’s when people were shocked at the Miller decision, which said that your checking account records were the bank’s and you had no 4th Amendment interest in them.

    That was the camel’s nose.

    I suspect that there are lots of things that I consider violations of the 4th Amendment that you don’t consider as such. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  28. I have a migraine and it hurts so I’m going to bed. Re allyP block quote, see the overnight at AOHQ for the importance of S. I started off assuming the worst,or allowing for it….but it’s not the main meat and i am getting the most uneasy feeling these cyber security/ intelligence issues are seen as some kind of liability for the GOP, or interests attached eg Mike Murphy or lobbyists of his ilk.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  29. 26. 21. Clapper is just a designated cretin, he has no comparative power, except to say “Yes, ______, may I have another?”

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/25/2013 @ 8:05 pm

    What’s up with the knee-jerk response to diminish the individual role anyone played in this sordid mess?

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  30. When media outlets broke the SWIFT story during Bush’s tenure, I was outraged.

    This. Very much this. I want every conservative who defended Bush, and was outraged at the NYT, but who is now happy to attack 0bama and is saying nice things about Snowdon, to explain the difference. It can’t be merely that we trusted Bush and can’t trust 0bama. You just can’t have a system where right and wrong depends entirely on who’s in office.

    Like it or not that man is the president, and for all the things he’s doing wrong, thank God he hasn’t completely abandoned his duty to defend the nation against its enemies, so when the left is attacking him for it we shouldn’t pile on. Return the focus to the real scandals.

    Of course if it should turn out that he’s supplying the surveillance information to the Moslem Brotherhood, that would justify a leak.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  31. I know it’s very fashionable to say that it’s unthinkable to “prosecute journalists for journalism” — but if national security information is legitimately classified, helps us fight terrorism, and is knowingly revealed by a “journalist,” I don’t know that such actions are obviously beyond prosecution.

    Journalists are not special, and should not be given any deference by the law. They do not have a special constitutional role, they are certainly not a “fourth estate” (how many of them can name the first three? and since when have we had them in America?) And yes, that applies to FOX News and James Rosen too. If there were grounds for suspecting him of a crime then it was right to search his computer and it’s right to prosecute him, provided that the same standard is applied to all his colleagues as well. If. I’m not convinced soliciting a leak is itself a crime.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  32. piggy piggy nsa spy nazis have their secrets me i have my own ones

    they are very different kinds of secrets

    Sorry, feets, but your secrets are now their secrets.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  33. i wonder if they know what color clock I picked (noob nsa junior spywhore in training hint: it matches the break room chairs)

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  34. Feets, will you agree that the government spying on the SWIFT network was an important national secret, and that exposing it did real damage to our security and gave aid and comfort to the people the USA is officially at war with?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  35. The one thing we do know is that […] Holder […] lied to Congress, under oath.

    Do we know that? The premise is that he signed the search warrant for Rosen, and then told Congress that he didn’t know of any plans to prosecute journalists, which means he lied either to Congress or to the judge. Even then, by far the most probable alternative was that he had lied to the judge. But now we know that there was never any claim that he had signed the warrant application, but merely that he had signed off on it, i.e. he had approved the proposal to apply for one, but had not seen the application itself.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  36. Of course if it should turn out that he’s supplying the surveillance information to the Moslem Brotherhood, that would justify a leak.

    I don’t know if he’s as crude and crass as that, but it’s his ideological influence (and that of the people all around him, and of like-minded people throughout this nation) that has made no less than the US military treat people like Nidal Hasan with kid gloves, right up until the final, fateful, bloody minute. Nonetheless, people of sanity and good will should always step gingerly around the very fine line (and bankruptcy) of moral equivalency, even more so since the left often mocks or happily ignores that particular line.

    Mark (67e579)

  37. I say pin a medal on him for exposing unconstitutional acts, and hang him for espionage right after.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  38. I say pin a medal on him for exposing unconstitutional acts, and hang him for espionage right after.

    What exactly is unconstitutional about what he has exposed?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  39. I don’t recall this Chicago style administration denying the Snowden claim about domestic surveillance, emails, facebook and cell phone records etc.. Besides Holder, Clapper lied under oath.

    My biggest concern is how some “contract” worker got the “super secret” information so easily. If this hack got this so called super secret stuff so easily, that means we got lots more bigger problems. I don’t think Mr leading from behind meant transparency in that way. Given all these scandals as of late, I can’t help but think the inmates are running the asylum.

    Perhaps if these super secrets secrets were worth a damn the Boston brothers and all those calls to 976-Jihad would have been caught before they acted. But then they didn’t belong to their local tea party nor where they Christian, who are the real “terrorist” so we are told.

    MSL (5f601f)

  40. What exactly is unconstitutional about what he has exposed?

    I have been asking that question and don’t think I have received a clear answer.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  41. No contents of texts, emails, facebook postings, tweeter, instagram? Contents not just contacts. If content was seized without a warrant it is unconstitutional even if it is not read but only stored.

    nk (875f57)

  42. I believe Snowden’s leaks may show the government assumes the parties to a communication are foreigners or non-citizens, and thus no warrant is needed to listen in. I believe that violates the Constitution if a participant is an American citizen.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. If so, they are using the foreign party exception to justify listening to everyone.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. The link sure seems to suggest that.

    That might be the most damning link I have seen yet.

    (That said, there was at least one link I previously considered damning (based on Nadler’s comments) and it turned out to be based on a misunderstanding.)

    Patterico (9c670f)

  45. I wonder what happens if, while listening to a communication, they determine that the communication is purely domestic . . . but also simultaneously determine that the communication concerns illicit activity — such that the content of the conversation is justified as being in the “plain hearing” (like “plain view”) of the law enforcement official.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  46. Unjustifiably. This is far beyond traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The “foreign” eavesdropping could be justified under the already existing cross-border exception for physical searches. I have no problem with being listened in on when calling out of the country, well I do but you know …. I don’t know what to say when I’m told that I am not safe if I am not listened to when calling inside the country.

    nk (875f57)

  47. The “plain view” argument may be why the Administration says calls involving American citizens are always listened to inadvertently or accidentally. Maybe so, but IMO that argument is undercut if there have been hundreds or thousands of “accidents.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  48. I believe Snowden’s leaks may show the government assumes the parties to a communication are foreigners or non-citizens, and thus no warrant is needed to listen in. I believe that violates the Constitution if a participant is an American citizen.

    How so? Isn’t it a reasonable assumption, since most people in the world are not Americans? Note that according to the linked article, before they do anything else they must first determine whether their assumption is correct — they can listen to the call or look at the email’s contents for the purpose of determining whether the person is American, and therefore the communication is privileged. Only after they’ve determined that that is not the case can they listen for any other purpose. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, at least in principle. Certainly not what’s unconstitutional about it. I’d probably support legislation to get rid of the whole system, on the grounds that it does more harm than good, but that’s a prudential issue, not a constitutional one.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  49. Plain view in the sense they searched my house for drugs per the search warrant and found a machine gun too? Pretty shaky, here. That could be an exception that could swallow the whole Fourth Amendment.

    nk (875f57)

  50. Patterico,

    Maybe Nadler’s earlier allegation was based on a misunderstanding, but as the Business Insider link at my comment #43 explains:

    After the hearing was over, however, Nadler was contacted by the White House and subsequently retracted his claim.

    Misunderstanding or convenient backtrack?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  51. Milhouse,

    The government is accessing American communication companies. The odds are most of the customers are American.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  52. I was exchanging emails with my wife and daughter when they were in China and Australia on the same accounts we always use here. I can see if they’re monitoring only my end that they wouldn’t know where my wife’s computer was. But why is that my problem?

    nk (875f57)

  53. The government is accessing American communication companies. The odds are most of the customers are American.

    If you’re referring to the Verizon metadata, then that isn’t protected at all. The Court ruled in the ’70s that there was no expectation of privacy in metadata. Now we’re only talking about the contents of calls, so we must be talking about calls which the metadata have already told them have at least one end in a foreign country. The majority of those communications are not of Americans.

    And of course anything routed over the internet could be coming from anywhere.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  54. Yes, I have a pretty, young daughter who went to China. Anybody want to make something of it?

    nk (875f57)

  55. nk, the point is that if they see email between you and a Chinese IP they can assume you’re communicating with a Chinese citizen, and therefore they probably have the right to read it, but before they read it for any other purpose they have to look for clues that their assumption was wrong, and both parties are in fact American. Once they find that they have to stop. At least going on the linked article.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  56. I’m not talking about metadata, Milhouse. I’m talking about listening to content without a warrant. It may be that the decision what to listen to is based on a review of metadata but that’s not clear.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  57. In addition to not enjoying at all Snowden’s fall into Teh Stupid, I am struck with the feeling that these programs like PRISM are simply too complex for human beings or agencies to handle at all.

    If it takes 5 million top security clearances to run the damn thing, it stands to reason that many of those people will be traitors, fools, or just plain incompetent and it will fail.

    Technology has now surpassed our ability to use it. So AI is not so much a threat as misplaced trust in its efficacy.

    Patricia (be0117)

  58. I need to learn more how IPs work. It would be Gmail’s server where all the work, metadata and content, is done, right?

    nk (875f57)

  59. Good night, guys.

    nk (875f57)

  60. Any fresh young up and comers? Well, except for Anthony Weiner of course.

    — There ain’t nuthin’ coming up fresh, there!

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  61. Doctors keep secrets for their patients called confidential medical information.

    — Safely stored on IRS hard drives.

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  62. I don’t recall this Chicago style administration denying the Snowden claim about domestic surveillance, emails, facebook and cell phone records etc.

    — That’s because they have NOT denied it. The president himself admitted it.

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  63. they can listen to the call or look at the email’s contents for the purpose of determining whether the person is American, and therefore the communication is privileged.
    Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:57 pm

    — And HOW, exactly, do they make that determination?

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  64. And I know a couple of people (Icy in particular, as I recall) pooh-poohed my post about his girlfriend — but I am curious: is she still missing?
    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 6/25/2013 @ 7:56 pm

    — If they aren’t together then I’m pretty certain that Snowden misses her terribly.

    [There’s a new report — just released as I’m typing this — that says friends of hers are ‘harbouring’ her.]

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  65. – And HOW, exactly, do they make that determination?

    Well, how do you propose they make it? The only way is to look at it to see who is participating. How else? My question is why you think they have a constitutional obligation to assume that the conversation is protected, without any evidence.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  66. Guilty of being a foreigner until proven to be an innocent American, eh?

    Icy (3cd8e3)

  67. Nobody’s being judged guilty of anything. The question is whether a search the NSA wants to make violates the fourth amendment. Surely the onus is on you (or whoever wants to prevent it) to demonstrate in any individual case that the search is illegal. Without any reason to suppose it illegal why should the NSA make that assumption without even testing it?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  68. Ok. Pat…As an attorney how about you explain to us how this is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment. And while you’re at, it why don’t you reference the dearth intelligence law that supports the supposed “legality” of this NSA spying on US citizens, on US soil crap. Cause I know you went out and researched this before you made that statement. I’m sure you found several LAWS to support this.

    So…I’m all ears.

    Bets (717964)

  69. Bets, why don’t you explain why it is a violation. Because in the absence of any reason to suppose it is, by default it isn’t. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that there is no expectation of privacy in metadata, so it’s not protected, and there’s nothing at all unconstitutional in the government looking at it whenever it likes. The fourth amendment also doesn’t apply to border-crossing, so there’s no constitutional reason why the government shouldn’t listen to every phone call and read every email that crosses the border in either direction. Nor does the fourth amendment prevent the government from searching foreigners on foreign soil, so any call that originates and terminates in a foreign country is fair game unless the government knows that one party is a USA citizen.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  70. 43

    43.I believe Snowden’s leaks may show the government assumes the parties to a communication are foreigners or non-citizens, and thus no warrant is needed to listen in. I believe that violates the Constitution if a participant is an American citizen.

    Under what circumstances is this assumption being made? This was not clear to me from your link.

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  71. Perhaps Patterico knows the answer to this. Back in the day when mobsters used public pay phones what were the rules about tapping said phones (with a warrant)? What was law enforcement required to do to separate the mobster’s calls from the general public’s?

    James B. Shearer (fc4608)

  72. 30. I don’t get the logic of your complaint, ‘diminish the role’.

    Nuremberg established that there is a very limited defense in “following orders”. Clapper must hang even if he merely fetches coffee in WH policy meetings.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  73. Revealing the actual machine IDs of the Chinese routers that have been hacked may be a secret but it is hardly handing the program code to the Chinese that enables the practice.

    The Chinese knew they’ve been hacked.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  74. 59. A NIC, network interface card has a registered ID, an IP internet address is a volatile assigned ‘address’ on the net where the NIC lives.

    The router listens to every packet passing its way and decides which are to be handled by itself, re-tweeted as it were on one of its limbs.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  75. 58. If it takes 5 million top security clearances to run the damn thing, it stands to reason that many of those people will be traitors, fools, or just plain incompetent and it will fail.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 6/25/2013 @ 11:11 pm

    Slightly O/T, but figure the odds! The same guy who couldn’t be trusted with a clearance is the same guy who should never have been selected for the Army’s 18x Special Forces Recruit enlistment option.

    I won’t go into my doubts about Snowden’s story; Dustin wouldn’t like it. Let’s say it did happen. WTFO?!?!

    I still say Eddie Snowden’s greatest service to this country may just be proving that the idiots running this country will give an Eddie Snowden a TS/SCI clearance.

    Fire them all and change the warning sign at airports about firearms to read “all firearms must have a round in the chamber and be accompanied by two full magazines or speed loaders” and we’d be a better country.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  76. I was thinking that “follow the money” would be interesting. Snowden had this planned apparently, who sponsored him? Unless he is independently wealthy, where will he get an income?

    The idea of “selling” secrets to the Chinese or Russians by showing up on their doorsteps seems doubtful to me, for example-
    Snowden: Mr. Putin, I have some information to sell you.
    Vladimir: You have some information to sell me?
    Snowden: Yes, sir.
    Vladimir: I thought you had some information to give me.
    Snowden: Well, I thought we can make a deal.
    Vladimir: Oh, we can make a deal; you give us the information, and we let you live without torturing you…
    and I mean torturing you, not playing with water.
    Who do you think you are dealing with, Barack Obama?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  77. 74.Revealing the actual machine IDs of the Chinese routers that have been hacked may be a secret but it is hardly handing the program code to the Chinese that enables the practice.

    The Chinese knew they’ve been hacked.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:18 am

    Knowing what’s being done as opposed to how it’s being done or even why someone else knew to do it are separate things entirely.

    That said, you’ve articulated the reason I didn’t believe everything the SCMP attributed to Snowden’s leaking as being the ground truth. The PRC would have known about any cyber attacks against it. The individual ISPs the SCMP attributed to Snowden could have come just as easily from Beijing itself. And as I said I can’t imagine anything that would eff up an extradition hearing (for the USG) than being forced to prove something like it hacked into Tsinghua University’s network only to find Snowden wasn’t the source of the leak.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  78. “Back in the day when mobsters used public pay phones what were the rules about tapping said phones (with a warrant)? What was law enforcement required to do to separate the mobster’s calls from the general public’s?”

    Comment by James B. Shearer

    As a practical matter, we had to actually see the target using the phone.

    Whenever we had Title III (wire tap) surveillance on a criminal subject, we had to “minimize”, which meant that we would listen briefly to every call. Even if we determined that it was the target on the phone, if the call was not relevant to his criminal conduct, we had to stop listening and stop recording. If the caller was not the target, we had to stop listening immediately.

    These minimization rules applied to any call that the target made, even if it was from the phone in his house. To get coverage on any phone that the target might use, we had to have a “roving Title III”, which was a nightmare to administer.

    However, these are the rules used for wiretaps obtained under Tittle III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and have little to do with the issues raised by the NSA program under discussion.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  79. Fire them all and change the warning sign at airports about firearms to read “all firearms must have a round in the chamber and be accompanied by two full magazines or speed loaders” and we’d be a better country.

    Indeed. I’m only defending this stuff on constitutional grounds, not on policy grounds. I think it’s legal, but probably bad policy.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  80. Even if we determined that it was the target on the phone, if the call was not relevant to his criminal conduct, we had to stop listening and stop recording

    So if he suspected he was being monitored, all he had to do was spend the first minute chatting about the baseball or the price of fish, and you’d have to hang up, whereupon he could go on to business?! That makes no sense at all.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  81. So if he suspected he was being monitored, all he had to do was spend the first minute chatting about the baseball or the price of fish, and you’d have to hang up, whereupon he could go on to business?! That makes no sense at all.

    Well, that is what minimization rules called for.

    We could go off and on during a phone call to make sure it was actually not pertinent. And we had a pen register, so we knew who he was calling. If it was “Tony the hitman”, then the determination that it was not pertinent would take a while. If it was Northend Pizza, not so much.

    If you didn’t minimize, you ran the risk of having all the recordings thrown out…sort of like an over broad execution of a search warrant.

    A problem that cropped up occasionally was the target having his wife make a call to the wife of a confederate, take a few minutes talking about something non-pertinent, then both wives turning the phones over to their husbands.

    Frankly, I was always amazed at the lip service that mobsters paid to the idea that they were being monitored. They knew it was possible, but frequently didn’t think it was happening.

    Typical…”Don’t say anything because the Feds are on the line, but we are going to wack Vinnie tonight”

    But lets face it…if a subject really thought he was being monitored, he wouldn’t use the phone anyway.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  82. Let’s start talking about Snowden again. The gay marriage and abortion threads are depressing. Now, he’s supposedly at the “stateless” transit area of Moscow airport and Ecuador is asking the US for an excuse not to embarass Obama http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/26/edward-snowden-moscow-russia/2458719/.

    nk (875f57)

  83. 79

    However, these are the rules used for wiretaps obtained under Tittle III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and have little to do with the issues raised by the NSA program under discussion.

    It seems to me that some of the issues are analogous. For example could you automatically record all the calls and filter them later or did you have to filter as the calls were made (which is obviously a lot more trouble).

    James B. Shearer (d50741)

  84. The issues are analogous, but the authority under which the NSA operates is different.

    Tittle III wiretaps are time consuming and difficult to obtain. They are based upon probable cause and require additional steps, such as establishing that the information to be obtained can not be obtained in any other way.

    Title III’s are for a particular telephone number or group of telephone numbers unless a “roving Tittle III” is obtained. And they involve the monitoring of only the target or targets named in the application.

    In answer to your question, the rules of minimization require that each call be monitored if and only if that call is pertinent to criminal activity and involves the target of the investigation. With a Title III wiretap there is no “blanket recording” of all calls or even all calls involving the target.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  85. Well there’s that section of code, USC 5240, that proscribes recording of Us persons, speaking of squirrels;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/26/nsa-revelations-response-to-smears

    narciso (3fec35)

  86. Jeez…do you suppose Greenwald ever dredged up some old dirt on a person he was was tryng to trash?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  87. Here you go-
    Would you subpoena the NSA database to get a recording of a telephone conversation in a murder trial?
    Treyvon Martin’s girlfriend testified today about her telephone conversation with Martin minutes before the confrontation and shooting, claiming Martin complained about some “spooky guy” following him, and the conversation ending with martin saying, “Get off me, get off me.”

    A recording of that exchange would likely end the case. If it is as according to her, the idea that Z was defending himself is hard to swallow-
    if it is anything else that at least destroys the credibility of the prosecution’s case, especially if we hear Trevon make some trash talk about teaching the guy a lesson or some such.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  88. Remember MD, the prosecution withheld the video images on his phone, that belied the innocent narrative, every piece of ‘evidence’ has been manufactured, in a way that would make Vyskinsky
    proud.

    narciso (3fec35)

  89. Calfed–Greenwald has been regularly and rather mercilessly mocked in this blog for a number of reasons for a number of years. He is not a favorite here. That does not alter the fact that normally uninquisitive newsies are “independently” dredging up the exact same inconsequential events from his past–some from decades ago–and asking him about them within hours of each other. That is a “tell”. It is, in fact a pattern we are used to seeing more and more in other situations where the White House or the administration wants to neutralize someone. Oh, like a kid in prep school cutting off another kid’s hair fifty years ago. Or a pet dog transported in his cage on a car roof in the 1980’s. Really serious stuff and stories that amazingly seem to hit all the major blogs and news channels simultaneously, too. You know, coincidences like that.

    In this one thing they are quite transparent.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  90. He throws this out, elissa, so more significant details like his appearance at the Marxist conference in 2011 are not given attention, yes we’ve seen how the left employed dirty tricks against Bork and Thomas, and Ryan and Hull and with Sarah they made up things out of whole cloth.

    narciso (3fec35)

  91. I’m sorry, elissa, but despite Greenwald’s heart- wrenching column, I just can’t muster any sympathy for him.

    So a corrupt media turns on one its own…color me unmoved.

    Have you ever heard that old saying “What goes around comes around”?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  92. I don’t think Elissa was trying to elicit sympathy for The Gleeens. She was pointing out the tactics of the Obama MFM.

    JD (bdb1b0)

  93. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:07 pm

    I wasn’t aware of that specific detail, and I had to look up who Vyskinsky is/was,
    but I have been under the impression that the prosecution’s case is a lot like the early reporting, edited and twisted to make Z look guilty, not to clarify the case.

    I just think it would be so wonderful to hear a recording that shows the testimony was fabricated.
    In the best of worlds maybe it would not only get Z free, but the girlfriend in jail for perjury (to teach the lesson that if you “decide to be a snitch”, maybe you better tell the truth)
    and maybe some others in trouble for encouraging what she “was supposed to remember”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  94. I really don’t see anyone asking you to muster sympathy, Calfed. But quite frankly most of us are more interested in how Snowden got his security clearnces and who helped him get access to specific deep secret stuff than we are about journalists puffing themselves up and making themselves part of the story.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  95. Snowden may very well have been your GARDEN VARIETY…..”DO GOODER”. Obviously, to anyone with an ounce of sense, SNOWDEN, is a SELF AGRANDIZING, SEMI-MISFIT, FAME SEEKING……..CLOWN.
    IF EdTARD SNOWDEN, who self describes himself as an AMERICAN, gave a flying fiddlers FUX about AMERICA,….EdTARD would not have AIRED AMERICA’S dirty laundry…..IN MOTHER FUXING COMMUNIST CHINA. And then moved his RETARDED SHOW to MOSCOW, all 4 laptops etc.

    Gus (694db4)

  96. Thanks JD. I hadn’t seen your post when I replied.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  97. Here you go-
    Would you subpoena the NSA database to get a recording of a telephone conversation in a murder trial?

    –MD

    The problem, MD, is who is the defense going to subpoena? The NSA?

    The federal Government is immune to being subpoenaed in State court.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  98. What struck me, most about that piece, was that Greenwald didn’t have a new tidbit, it seems the SMCP and possibly the Russian papers, have all the new information,

    narciso (3fec35)

  99. Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:36 pm

    Thanks for the thought.
    Remember, I am an MD, and not a lawyer.
    I have/had no idea about the details, I was thinking more along the lines of whether or not one liked what Snowden did, and whether or not one agrees with what the NSA has been doing,
    knowing that the information exists that might destroy the prosecution’s case, would you try to obtain it.
    I guess maybe what I should have said was get a warrant to give permission to access the info.
    But even then maybe you are correct that the NSA database is under fed jurisdiction not state, and even if people at NSA would be happy to turn it over, they can’t.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  100. I really don’t see anyone asking you to muster sympathy, Calfed. But quite frankly most of us are more interested in how Snowden got his security clearnces and who helped him get access to specific deep secret stuff than we are about journalists puffing themselves up and making themselves part of the story.
    –elissa

    Well good, because my sympathy meter for Greenwald is on “0”.

    As for how Snowden got his clearance…quite easily, I’m guessing. Getting a security clearance is not much trouble if you have a clean arrest record, good credit, and some decent references.

    Hell, how did a mess like Bradley Manning keep his security clearance after striking a coworker, being found curled up in the fetal position rocking back and forth and moaning, and admitting that he had “gender identity disorder”?

    Hell, better yet, why was a guy like Manning allowed access to top secret State Department cables that contained extremely sensitive personal appraisals of foreign leaders. What possible need would an Army Private have for access to such material.

    Allow me to posit an answer…our intelligence agencies are run in an extremely inefficient and largely incompetent manner, particularly with respect to “need to know”.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  101. And frankly, regardless of how one feels about the legalities of these programs, a good argument can be made that any agency that can’t protect the information that it gathers any better than the NSA does probably shouldn’t be allowed to gather it in the first place.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  102. Thanks for the thought.
    Remember, I am an MD, and not a lawyer.

    –MD

    I’m not a lawyer either, MD, so I guess we both lucked out. 😉

    Calfed (5b899d)

  103. I guess my question must be boring or stupid or just overlooked. let me rephrase-
    Even if you are alarmed at what the NSA has been doing, if you are on the defense team for Zimmerman,
    would you try to get the recording of the contents of the conversation if you could?
    And do you think there is a way to get access and permission?
    In an ideal world, agencies that have the purpose of protecting the people from harm would work together.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  104. Calfed, my apology if you thought my latest comment was not appreciative of your interactions, I am; they brought out some good ideas I had not thought of
    but I am interested in seeing how the lawyer types would think about their responsibilities to their client interact with their beliefs on the larger issues.

    That, and I am wishing that this idea would work and get picked up on by the defense.
    if he is guilty, he should be held responsible
    if the witness is lying, she should be held responsible
    if the witness was “encouraged” to “remember” cetain events, those doing the encouraging should be held responsible

    “No justice for all, no justice at all” still applies.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  105. Pooter to Dog on Snowden extradition:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/obama-on-snowden-i-have-not-contacted-russia-or-china-personally-i-shouldnt-have-too-video/

    “Even if I wanted a raging case of Herpes, you’ve nothing to sell biatch.”

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  106. ECUADOR!!!

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/27/Ecuador-renounces-trade-benefits-from-US-Congress

    ecuador is too cool for school

    they could teach america a thing or two about dignity, no?

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  107. 107. Me chupen seca, pendejos Yanquis.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  108. 102. And frankly, regardless of how one feels about the legalities of these programs, a good argument can be made that any agency that can’t protect the information that it gathers any better than the NSA does probably shouldn’t be allowed to gather it in the first place.

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:59 pm

    On a macro scale I’d suggest that a government that gives the Christmas bomber a visa despite the fact that his own father went to a US embassy to raise red flags about him, can’t stop MAJ Hasan despite the fact his communications with Anwar al Awlaki brought him to the FBI’s attention (plus he was giving presentations to his colleagues justifying his future jihad), can’t prevent the Boston bombing despite getting warnings from the Russians, and then can’t even detect the thefts Manning and Snowden committed, isn’t competent to analyze the data anyway.

    “Mistakes were made.” The all purpose excuse from the government that can’t even identify the officials responsible for screwing up everything from Benghazi to giving Snowden and Manning access to absolutely everything. They all keep their jobs. They say they need to have the data on everybody in the US to find the needles in the haystack, but when you just look at the much smaller haystack called the USG they can’t find the responsible needles they need to fire.

    Has anyone lost their job over Manning and Snowden? No. They can’t find anyone who’s responsible for watching the store.

    And we’re supposed to believe they can find the terrorists?

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  109. Steve57,

    I’m sure you’ve addressed this but refresh my memory. If these surveillance programs were commonly known as you say and the only people who didn’t know about it were Patterico, nk and me, then all but the dumbest terrorists have known about and taken precautions for years. Thus, while I understand giving the technology to other countries is dangerous, why are Snowden’s public revelations a problem? Either it’s public knowledge or it isn’t.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  110. Let me give my opinion: Snowden may have revealed what the NSa was NOT collecting, and he or others may have revealed more things privately.

    They are now saying that terrorists have changed their method of coimmunication because of news repoorts. I don’t believe that. That is, I don’t beleive that is because of news reports. The terrorists have support from some intelligence agencies, notably that of Pakistan. Maybe Qatar, but something may have caused the Emnir to suddenly abidicate. Qatar had just become teh site of Afghanistan peace talks.

    To get everyone into the right frame of mood, the Taliban:

    1) Launched an attack at the main U.S. air basxe in Afghanistan and killed some soldiers (the same day reswponsibility I think was truned over to Afghanistan

    2) Declared themselves an embassy of the united emirates of Afghanistan or whatever they call
    their government.

    3) Flew the Taliban governmenmt flag.

    Hamid Karzai pulled out of the talks. That caught the U.S. government’s attention.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  111. Anyway back to Snowden. Perhaps terrorists and otehrs wanted to change what they were doing, but they didn’t want the U.S. to suspect there was a mole or two or three.

    So Snowden was recruited to steal and publicly reveal a few secrets, and anything that terrorists or foreign governments change that make it more difficult to eavesdrop or anmy new knowledge terrorists or foreign governments seem to have will be attributed to Snowden!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  112. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/27/2013 @ 7:18 am

    Even if you are alarmed at what the NSA has been doing, if you are on the defense team for Zimmerman

    there’d be aproblem in getting some acknowledgement that it exists, but there is an even bigger pproblem: There should nto exist any such recording.

    What the NSAwas receiving was te time and length of any phone calls.

    Now I think actually they should get that because I think there could be some problems with that.

    In court, the prosecutor got Rachel Jeantel to confirm or claim what were her and Trayvon Martion’s cell phone numbers that day.

    She also claimed she did not come forward as a witness for three weeks because she expected the ohone calls to be traced.

    If that was wrong, why was it wrong, because don’t the cell phone companies keep a recordd of all calls?

    Telephone calls are not being recorded (unless someone plans to do so in advance) but e-mails and the like are preserved on computers.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  113. 109. I’d say we have reason to doubt that they actually care about terrorists who target private citzens.

    Those attacks are merely justification for their Potemkin existence.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  114. 110. Steve57,

    I’m sure you’ve addressed this but refresh my memory. If these surveillance programs were commonly known as you say and the only people who didn’t know about it were Patterico, nk and me, then all but the dumbest terrorists have known about and taken precautions for years. Thus, while I understand giving the technology to other countries is dangerous, why are Snowden’s public revelations a problem? Either it’s public knowledge or it isn’t.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/27/2013 @ 2:45 pm

    Yes, I’ve addressed it. What Snowden has revealed about about the NSA’s domestic spying program isn’t news. In fact what he’s revealed about what the the NSA was doing to catch terrorists wasn’t news. Indeed if you recall it took years to track UBL to Abbottabad precisely because prior leaks about these efforts has prompted him to give up on digital communications and use couriers. They had to follow his couriers to his hideout.

    I’ve said the real damage Snowden is doing is to legitimate NSA espionage. The three examples I’ve given are:

    1. The list of Chinese ISPs in their effort to counter Chinese hacking, which is a major economic threat as well as a threat to our national security.

    2. Disclosing vulnerabilities in Russian leadership secure satellite communications.

    3. Damaging the US/UK relationship (and by doing so threatening the five-eyes intelligence sharing relationship with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada as well) be revealing specific methods the GCHQ used to gather diplomatic intelligence at the 2009 G20 London summit.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  115. …then all but the dumbest terrorists have known about and taken precautions for years.

    I thought I’d add somewhat sarcastically that the smarter terrorists may stop taking those precautions given how badly the government missed MAJ Hassan and the Tsarnaev brothers.

    The world is full of dumb terrorists, but we can’t catch them so what does that make us.

    But snark aside, yes, the smarter terrorists have been taking precautions like using throw away single use phones or throw away sim cards for years.

    The thing is the smarter terrorists use the dumber terrorists as “crash dummies.” The dumber terrorists are disposable just like their single use phones and sim cards. What Swnowden publicized has done some damage in that regard not because what’s he’s saying is news. The smarter terrorists have known it for years. But because of the publicity surrounding Snowden he’s educating the dumber terrorists. But on the whole that could turn out to be a wash, or even a net gain, as that may reduce the supply of crash dummies. They may decide it’s not worth it.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  116. “What Snowden has revealed about about the NSA’s domestic spying program isn’t news.”

    Steve57 – Heck, there doubt about whether some of the stuff he’s claimed is even true so claiming it isn’t news is a bunch of malarkey whichever way you want to spin it. Some stuff was known, some wasn’t.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. daley, I keep asking people to tell me what they think is new in what Snowden told them about the NSA’s domestic spying. Former Conservative came up with a list, and then I provided links to articles that almost everything was known years ago. Some articles only went back to 2012. One, when a former FBI agent named Clemente confirmed on CNN that the FBI had access to the contents of all cell phone calls went back only to the investigation following the Boston Marathon bombing.

    Even the name PRISM has been in the public domain for years. The Planning tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management is an analytical tool that’s used by several agencies as well as the military, not just NSA.

    Contractors advertise for job applicants who are familiar with it.

    http://thedailyjournalist.com/theinvestigative/online-resumes-of-several-persons-with-prism-and-other-spy-skills/

    But we’ve had a steady string of leaks over the years about what NSA was doing. The broad parameters where known and really the leaks just tended to confirm that the technology to collect and store the data was steadily improving.

    Sure, Snowden screwed up several details and appears to to have exaggerated quite a bit about what the NSA was actually doing and its real capabilities. But that’s because he was the IT geek. It appears he thought PRISM was a collection program when it wasn’t.

    But if you think you see something Snowden revealed about the NSA’s domestic spying that’s new I’d love for you to tell me what it is.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  118. Gen. Alexander said 50 plots had been foiled since 9/11, that it wasn’t possible for a System Admin to listen in on calls.

    Of the very few ‘plots’ we have any info at all on, two in San Diego were nothing, just some curious tidbits removed from context. In court NSA involvement, let alone their evidence, was out-of-bounds to the defense.

    Time Square bombing connections were all Britains work, we totally dropped the ball.

    The idea that these guys our ‘on our side’ is totally without evidentiary support.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  119. The Obama Administration goes after leakers:

    The Stuxnet Leaker Might Be the General Credited with Getting It Started

    The Obama administration’s investigation into the leak of classified information on Stuxnet, a U.S. cyberattack targeting Iran’s nuclear programs, has zeroed in on retired Marine General James Cartwright. As in, the general credited with presenting the idea of Stuxnet to the White House in the first place.

    Ex-Pentagon general target of leak investigation, sources say

    National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

    Legal sources tell NBC News that the former second ranking officer in the U.S. military is now the target of a Justice Department investigation into a politically sensitive leak of classified information about a covert U.S. cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

    According to legal sources, Retired Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has received a target letter informing him that he’s under investigation for allegedly leaking information about a massive attack using a computer virus named Stuxnet on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gen. Cartwright, 63, becomes the latest individual targeted over alleged leaks by the Obama administration, which has already prosecuted or charged eight individuals under the Espionage Act.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  120. At the time this was leaked, the virus had already been discovered independently.

    All he did, if anything, was confirm U.S. involvement.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7403 secs.