Snowden saw what I saw: surveillance criminally subverting the constitution Thomas Drake

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution


Thomas Drake, NSA whistleblower, in a still from the Robert Greenwald documentary War on Whistleblowers. Photograph: guardian.co.uk

What Edward Snowden has done is an amazingly brave and courageous act of civil disobedience.

Like me, he became discomforted by what he was exposed to and what he saw: the industrial-scale systematic surveillance that is scooping up vast amounts of information not only around the world but in the United States, in direct violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution.

The NSA programs that Snowden has revealed are nothing new: they date back to the days and weeks after 9/11. I had direct exposure to similar programs, such as Stellar Wind, in 2001. In the first week of October, I had an extraordinary conversation with NSA's lead attorney. When I pressed hard about the unconstitutionality of Stellar Wind, he said:

"The White House has approved the program; it's all legal. NSA is the executive agent."

[ProSense]

1. This is

Like me, he became discomforted by what he was exposed to and what he saw: the industrial-scale systematic surveillance that is scooping up vast amounts of information not only around the world but in the United States, in direct violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution.

The NSA programs that Snowden has revealed are nothing new: they date back to the days and weeks after 9/11. I had direct exposure to similar programs, such as Stellar Wind, in 2001. In the first week of October, I had an extraordinary conversation with NSA's lead attorney. When I pressed hard about the unconstitutionality of Stellar Wind, he said:

"The White House has approved the program; it's all legal. NSA is the executive agent."

It was made clear to me that the original intent of government was to gain access to all the information it could without regard for constitutional safeguards. "You don't understand," I was told. "We just need the data."

In the first week of October 2001, President Bush had signed an extraordinary order authorizing blanket dragnet electronic surveillance: Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

...weird. Bush was collecting metadata without a warrant or any approval from the FISA court, that's illegal. The Obama administration got a warrant and went through the FISA court. Snowden just decided he didn't approve so he leaked classified information.

Also, Bush was actually illegally eavesdropping on Americans.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

Edward Snowden Reportedly Gives Interview To Chinese News Outlet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023000048

[bobduca]

3. Fisa court is a joke

But you won't admit that. It's window dressing. It's the appearance of judicial oversight.

[randome]

5. You say the FISA Court is a joke, presumably because they haven't disallowed any warrants.

Couldn't that also be because the Administration is very careful about what cases it brings to them?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[bobduca]

7. You would have to be very naive to beleive that, given that .

EVEN IF the FISA court rejected one of these warrants, the govt. agencies have an appeal process. Yep, an appeal process for a rubber-stamp court that meets monthly and has a 100% track record of approvals...

Yeah the govt. is *that* careful alright, careful to make sure that judicial oversight is only window dressing.

Moreover, the lawmakers briefed on these programs... CAN'T SPEAK OUT IN OPPOSITION, because they are briefed in secret, closed session.

[JoePhilly]

26. In 2011, there were only about 1700 requests for warrants made to the FISA courts.

And all of those were approved. That's the point you are focused on.

I want to go back to the number of requests ... ~1700. Given there are over 300 Million Americans, doesn't 1700 seem like a very SMALL number of requests?

Wouldn't a police state be using this "rubber stamp court" more frequently?

Or ... isn't it possible that the very existence of the court causes investigators to be much more conservative with regards to the cases they bring forward for approval?

From an investigators point of view, you do not want to have your requests for a warrant rejected. If you get a reputation for bringing forward unsupported requests for warrants, you will surely prevent yourself from future promotion. However, if you only bring forward cases that have sufficient evidence for approval, you're performance ratings will be stronger.

~1700 total requests, that's a pretty small number for a police state.

[okaawhatever]

40. I heard on the news that 11 had been denied. Don't know if appeals or lower. nt

[JoePhilly]

44. I think this table has the year by year data.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

So you can see, year by year, the requests and the # of denials. Interestingly, there were 4 denials in 2003 and again in 2007.

My wife, who doesn't really follow any of this stuff, was the one who caused me to think about that 1700 number. She's been a big fan of police dramas for years and she joked that anyone who watched law and order knows that you don't just go request a warrant without enough evidence to get it approved. She always liked the episodes in which the female police chief would make the male cops keep investigating, and then when they finally had enough evidence to suit her, she'd say ... "Go get a warrant". That police chief did not want her officers getting rejected because that would reflect badly on her and her squad.

Its kind of silly, but I think she spotted an interesting point in all this hair-on-fire stuff.

If we're living in a police state ... 1700 requests a year isn't a big number. And the fact that all of them get approved doesn't necessarily mean anything, particularly if you think about how the investigators, and their bosses approach getting warrants.

[okaawhatever]

52. Thank you for that. Why doesn't the press report things like this? They want the hysteria to

continue. No need to give the masses information to assess a situation, they get more clicks by keeping everyone mis-and uninformed.

[JoePhilly]

55. YUP ... and have you noticed they stopped saying "wiretap" and shifted to "spying"

People were starting to learn that the government is in fact NOT wire tapping us.

So, rather than acknowledge that, they just shifted to a new, even broader term, "spying".

Using the more general term, "Spying" allows your imagination to fill in the gaps as to what specific actions are actually being undertaken. So now apparently, the government has bugged my home.

The reality is that the details matter. But discussing details also mutes the outrage. Which reduces the # of eyeballs.

[okaawhatever]

58. Exactly, I want details. nt

[LondonReign2]

45. You don't need very many warrants when they read

"You can collect EVERYTHING going across the Verizon network".

[JoePhilly]

56. So why are the numbers so low every year since 1978?

Its not just 2011 or 2012 that is low. Its every year since FISA was created.

And the Verizon warrant you refer to does not authorize anything but the collection of meta data, and explicitly excludes call content.

So let's say you have all that meta data from that one warrant. Now you mine it. And you find something you want to dig into. Maybe you want to listen to some one's calls based on something in that meta data analysis.

You'll need another warrant for that. And another warrant for each additional instance.

That still leaves only ~1699 additional warrants to listen to actual calls. And those warrants expire.

~1699 ... That's still a tiny number.

Again, I'd expect a much higher number, particular if we're living in the police state some are claiming.

[limpyhobbler]

13. Er... How can it be very careful if they get a warrant to collect info on EVERYONE ?

That's the opposite of careful. That's just trying to get the maximum possible info in their data banks.

The gov't should not monitor my or your personal communications unless there is some reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[randome]

19. There is no 'monitoring' without a valid warrant.

'Storing' the info is not the same as 'monitoring', IMO. And courts have pretty much always ruled that 3rd party records are not 'property'.

Do we have assurances that the stored info is impossible to steal? We could probably use more of that. But there is no evidence that it's occurred.

Each time they want to delve into that stored info, they have to obtain another warrant.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[limpyhobbler]

25. Recording private communications IS monitoring.

I don't care if it's legal or illegal.

It's an attack on privacy.

Why is the government recording and storing the personal communications of 200 million people?

They can see who you called, when, and how long...whenever they want.

That's bullshit and needs to stop. Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter.

Also the FBI says they only need a warrant for emails or other electronic communications that are unopened and less than 180 days old.

If the email has been opened or more than 6 months old, a subpoena will suffice.

Anyways I don't care if they have a warrant or not. It's totally irrelevant. The question on my mind is a question of right and wrong. Not a question of legal or illegal.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/fbi-documents-suggest-feds-read-emails-without-warrant

[randome]

41. 'Right' and 'wrong' are not settled by someone stealing info then running to Hong Kong.

I would have no problem with Greenwald citing 'unnamed sources' in comprehensive stories. But now the story has become "Why is Snowden hiding in Hong Kong?" Why, if Greenwald was wrong about 'direct access', does he continue to push this? And, of course, did someone without a degree actually have the ability to spy on anyone in the world? They couldn't have provided SOME evidence of this?

And the Guardian is no longer making the claim that the NSA is monitoring you without a warrant.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42121_The_Guardian_quietly_walks_back_their_PRISM_overreach_without_correcting_previous_reporting

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[limpyhobbler]

64. People can decide for themselves if mass surveillance is wrong. That's why it's vital that the Ame

vital that the American people be allowed to know if government is conducting mass domestic surveillance and data mining on private communications.

We have a right to know if the government is data warehousing our private communications.

The personalities of the individuals involved are totally irrelevant.

The government tried to keep this surveillance a secret.

The people have a right to know about this surveillance.

Some dude informed the public.

[druidity33]

70. And Firearms sales records last what, 48 hours? nt.

[ljm2002]

22. But it's not just this Administration...

...please see this chart:

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

for a breakdown of FISA applications vs. approvals.

Since 1979, there have been a grand total of 11 FISA requests that were rejected. Out of 33,949 requests. 10 were rejected under Bush and 1 under Obama.

You may believe this is all because all administrations since 1979 have been "very careful about what cases it brings". I do not .

[SlimJimmy]

27. I'm with you. A simple look at the approvals vs disapprovals tells us all we need

know. The FISA court is merely a rubber stamp for the executive branch. It really doesn't matter what administration is in power. The numbers speak for themselves.

33,949 requests. 10 were rejected under Bush and 1 under Obama.

[JoePhilly]

46. So the average is about 1000 requests a year.

Isn't that a bit low for a police state?

[SlimJimmy]

51. We're not talking about a "police state", we're discussing the rubber stamping

by the FISA court of these requests. The number could be a hundred a year, and if *all* of them were approved, I would still wonder why. One order covering 200 million people's records would be one order too many. But of course, that would never hap ... never mind.

[JoePhilly]

59. Why do you think investigators go and requests warrants without sufficient

evidence to get it approved?

Imagine you are an investigator. If you go to the court and ask for a warrant and it gets rejected, that goes on your record. Investigators do not want to have their warrant requests rejected. It does not help them in performance reviews.

Now, if the number was in the 10s of thousands or higher, I'm in.

But only 1700 or so?

I'm more likely to believe that the investigators know not to bring frivolous requests to the FISA court. Which is why the otal number of requests, year over year is also tiny.

[SlimJimmy]

60. Investigators have their warrants rejected by judges on a regular basis.

It doesn't go on some *record*. The judge rejects it and in some cases recommends steps to improve the chances of a future affidavit for a warrant being accepted. For example, if an investigator says he believes that stolen property is at a certain location, but doesn't have any evidence showing the likelihood that the property is there, that request will probably be rejected. The judge might then say, "Get an informant to verify the existence of the property at that location, or develop surveillance that shows it being moved there, and I might reconsider." That's how it really works.

For some reason, you seem to think the amount of requests reflect some type of justification of the FISA court. As I previously stated, just one request to collect the data of hundreds of millions of records is sufficient for me to question the program's scope.

[JoePhilly]

62. The justification for the FISA court was originally made in 1978.

When it was proposed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. So I don't need to create a justification for its existence. A good justification already exists.

And your example of being rejected is different than going to the FISA court. This isn't petty crime were discussing. Its national security. Probably another reason why the # of requests is so low. In most cases, they can go to the normal courts. They only go to teh FISA courts for something more serious.

Bottom line: I'm looking at the number of requests as an indicator of the extent to which this country has become a police state, which is what many seem to be claiming. And again, to me, that number seems awful low.

[SlimJimmy]

65. Actually, you seem to be the only one claiming that in this thread. But with that said

my point was that judges *do* in fact reject affidavits for warrants quite often, and they don't keep score. I would expect a much higher rate of rejection from this court. That's why I tend to agree with the assertion that it's been a rubber stamp for this and previous administrations.

Bottom line: I'm looking at the number of requests as an indicator of the extent to which this country has become a police state,

[SlimJimmy]

67. I'm not saying it's a police state. You seem to be the only one making that contention.

I'm saying that the rejection rate is extremely low, and has the feeling of being rubber stamped.

[JoePhilly]

30. Aren't you surprised that in 2011 there were only about 1700 requests?

I mean, wouldn't a police state be making MANY MANY more requests to this "rubber stamp" court?

1700 requests, 300 million Americans.

Why is the number of requests so low?

You must at least consider that the actual investigators know that having their requests rejected looks bad on their records. And so they might very well be very conservative with regards to the cases for which they make such requests.

Again ... the rubber stamp argument makes more sense, if the number of requests was a much larger number than 1700 in a given year.

Side note, if you check that data, the average is just a little over 1000 requests a year since the program started. Again, that seems like a very small number to me.

[HooptieWagon]

32. Who are the 1700?

The govt says its a "secret. Would anyone be surprised if the 1700 happened to include Occupy, protestors of XL G8 or Monsanto, investigative journalists and the like? The FISA Court is a virtual rubber-stamp, and the procedings are secret. How the hell are we (or Congress) supposed to know if the program is being actually administered as we've been told? Clapper has already lied to Congress under oath about the extent of the program.

[JoePhilly]

36. First, the FISA court has existed since 1978.

And all of a sudden, the fact that its proceedings are secret is a SURPRISE?

Back to the number 1700.

There are 50 states in the US. So that's about 34 per state in a year. That's a small number.

There are 435 districts in the US. So that's about 4 a year per district. Small number.

How about big cities. The top ten cites have over 1 million people each. So that's about 170 per city.

NY city alone has almost 9 million people. So if you used all 1700 in NY, you'd hit .018% of all of those people.

How many Occupy protesters are there? How many in the other groups you mention? How many right wing militia groups? Actually, I bet there are more than 1700 right wing militia groups, not 1700 members 1700 GROUPS.

Again ... 1700 is a TINY number. The idea that the government is scooping up scary occupy protesters with these 1700 requests is pretty silly.

[HooptieWagon]

68. 1700 per YEAR...

Thats a lot. Especially since they're US citizens being targeted by warrants from a court thats supposed to oversee FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. How many are being targeted by FBI? And how many abroad have simply disappeared?...We know US Citizens abroad have been executed by drones, Obama already claimed the perogative to do so.

No, Obama didn't start these programs that are the first steps towards a totaltarian state...but he sure has enthusiastically embraced and expanded them. And supposed Democrats are cheerleading....disgraceful.

[ljm2002]

38. It's a fairly low number, yes...

...but then I wasn't trying to make the case that we have become a police state. You introduced that notion into our exchange, not me.

While I am sure that the investigators don't want their requests rejected, that does not negate the fact that these requests are routinely approved. 11 rejected out of 35000+, that is pretty much the definition of a rubber stamp operation, regardless of whether you think the raw numbers are low or not.

As to your side note, an average number for this data makes little sense, since the number is (pretty much) monotonically increasing, up to 1856 in 2012 vs. 199 in its first year of operation. I'd say that's a fairly significant increase (without making any inferences about the merits), i.e. a 900% increase over that period of time.

[JoePhilly]

63. So since we're discussing the numbers and trends and such.

If we really want to be precise. The 11 rejections you note occurred during the Bush and Obama years. And there are about 20,000 requests in that period, not 33,900.

And then 4 of those occur in 2003 and again in 2007.

Even with the upward trend, we're still looking at TINY numbers. What's been the increase in terrorist activity in the last 30 years ... what would that trend line look like? What's the change in US population ... what's its trend line?

All of this still leaves me looking at tiny numbers. NY city has about 9 million people. Even if all 1700 requests were focused there, its tiny.

One of the reasons I think the number is low is that most of the time, the investigators don't need the FISA court at all. They simply use the normal courts system. The only reason to go to the FISA court is because you believe that THIS warrant, which would most likely be granted in any other court, also requires the level of secrecy that the FISA court was specifically created for.

The overall numbers. and the rejection rate, are low because the FISA court just isn't needed all that often.

And my reference to a police state is not something I simply created ... people are making that claim (and worse) all over DU this week.

[mattclearing]

24. Which Administration?

Are you saying the Bush Administration was careful about the cases brought as well?

[randome]

39. I would say the Obama Administration is more careful and more trustworthy than the Bush Admin.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JoePhilly]

47. We know that for a fact given that Bush bypassed the FISA court and Obama has not.

[JoePhilly]

42. A few points if you want to make that comparison ...

First, if you look at the data going back 33 years, you'll see that the range of requests in a given year range from about 700 to about 2300.

Here's a link that has a pretty good summary of that data. http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

So you can see during the Bush years how many requests they took to FISA by year.

However, to really understand the Bush years, you have to also recall that for much of it, the Bush administration BYPASSED both the FISA court and Congressional oversight. And so the numbers for the Bush years show only those requests for which they actually used the FISA court.

This lack of oversight was the big issue regarding surveillance during the Bush years ... the fact that his administration was bypassing the FISA court all together is what got everyone engaged then. Most people understood that there needed to be some level of secrecy (in limited situations), but that there also had to be judicial and congressional oversight, and that's exactly why the FISA court was created in 1978 (under President Carter).

So we already know that the Bush administration was not being careful because they jumped over the FISA court entirely. The Obama administration has continued to use the FISA court in the manner in which it was intended.

And to go back to the secrecy point ... again, under Bush, people still recognized the need for secrecy in LIMITED situations. Which brings me back to the number 1700. That seems pretty "limited" to me.

[mattclearing]

69. I know all of this.

My point was that regardless of this Administration's discretion, if the court approved every agenda-driven vendetta and kooky hunch of the Bush Administration, then that should probably be factored into any assessment of the court's credibility.

[ProSense]

6. Wait,

"Fisa court is a joke But you won't admit that. It's window dressing. It's the appearance of judicial oversight."

...Drake wrote this:

In the first week of October 2001, President Bush had signed an extraordinary order authorizing blanket dragnet electronic surveillance: Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

You can call the court a "joke," but that is part of why Bush collecting the data without the court was illegal.

I mean, setting the criteria and than claiming that when these are followed, it's a "joke," does not make it "criminally subverting"

People are desperate to portray a legally conducted program as a crime. It's bullshit.

Warrants and the FISA court existed long before Obama, and following the procedures is not a "crime."

[bobduca]

8. I'm not claiming Obama started the national surveillance state..

but he sure has embraced it.

[JoePhilly]

49. Prosense ... curious what you think of this ...

The FISA court data indicates there were about 1700 FISA warrant requests in 2011, and about 1800 in 2012.

Everyone is upset that all of these were approved.

But I'm looking at how small those numbers are. 1700 and 1800.

That seems like an incredibly low number of FISA requests, particularly if we are living in a police state. if the court is a rubber stamp, and the investigators know that, I'd expect the number of requests to be much much higher.

I don't see anyone talking about these small numbers.

Which makes me wonder .... Am I missing something?

[Skidmore]

11. Castigating doesn't change anything.

[bobduca]

14. Yeah might as well just accept that we can't change it

Only the GREAT PEOPLE we elect can change anything!

[Skidmore]

17. Aw jeez.

Navel gazing at its best.

[nineteen50]

12. The courts

are a big part of the problem.

[EC]

35. Why?

You think because they approved all warrents it's a joke? Maybe, just maybe NSA didn't take out any warrants they knew would not be approved. That would be the correct thing to do. Trying to take out a warrant that isn't warranted would be trying to do something illegal.

[Melinda]

73. FISC is a joke. The judges are appointed by SCOTUS (Roberts) - chances they're Dem appointees?

Slim to none. The judges identities are kept secret for reason. SCOTUS is run by republican ideology as are almost all the Fed appeals courts. Bush appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (including one Chief Justice), 62 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 261 judges to the United States district courts. Of these 323 appointees, 32 are no longer on this bench.

Poppy Bush appointed 192 federal judges, including two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 42 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 148 judges to the United States district courts. In his single term in office, Bush came one appointment short of matching Franklin D. Roosevelt's mark of 193 federal judicial appointments over the course of his presidency. In total, Poppy appointed 384 to the bench. All but 55 have since retired.

Clinton appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 66 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 305 judges to the United States district courts. 192 of these 371 appointees are no longer on the bench.

291 - Bush*
55 - Poppy
179 - Clinton

There are presently 346 sitting Fed judges appointed by Poppy and Bush*
There are presently 179 sitting Fed judges appointed by Clinton

We are living in scary times.

Roberts has been in charge of FISC appointments since 9/2005. How many of these appointments are Clinton judges?

I'd reckon slim to none, but that's just me.

[OnyxCollie]

15. "Bush was actually illegally eavesdropping on Americans."

You keep making this claim.

Please provide a blue link to any punishment given to any Bush administration official for this (allegedly) illegal eavesdropping on Americans. Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

28. Did you read the warrant? It was attached to Greenwald's first article.

It is so broad as to mock the concept of probable cause.

It is a slap in the face to due process and the basic rights of Americans.

[timdog44]

37. Right on.

I am glad you posted this. The DUers are getting their pants in a wrinkle over this and it is not what it seems to be. I am very trusting of this administration being very careful about taking requests to FISA. And it is not a joke. It is one of the checks and balances. The 34000 odd requests talked about later on are over a 34 year period. 1000 a year. Not many in my opinion. And a police state would not even ask permission. They would just do it and many more than are happening here.

I think this has turned into a big conspiracy theory that the MAN is looking at everything we do. Too many intelligence movies that are intended to be fiction convincing people this kind of stuff happens all the time. Oh my God, the sky is falling

[NoMoreWarNow]

71. few if any people are claiming that Obama is breaking the law

the point is the over-arching nature of the program and how constitutional it is, despite the FISA court's stamp of approval.

[Octafish]

2. Gee. No wonder Cass Sunstein's followers want to shut down discussion.

The truth is a powerful thing in a democracy.

[Octafish]

10. Kick for opponents of abitrary, authoritarian secret government.

Drake entitled his talk:

"In the Shadowlands of the Secrecy State: Preying on the First Amendment."

The thing was taped in March, before the revelations of spying on the AP. At the 49:minute mark, he's asked if NSA is spying on reporters -- and he can't answer directly, as he's still under obligation to the secrecy statutes -- but he says that spying on reporters is possible, as the government spied on journos in the 60s and 70s.

[Monkie]

20. carl bernstein - the cia and the media (400 reporters were also operatives)

a good time to dig up this "old news"?

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

BY CARL BERNSTEIN

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

so the next time you see a "journalist" or "pundit" shilling for the government and defending the indefensible it might be a very good idea to wonder why they are doing so.

[Octafish]

34. We're on the same wavelength: Three Things Every American Should Know about Corporate McPravda...

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size=1"]Professional Liar by susan m hinckley.[/font size]

The official voice of the Republikkkon Party also seems the official voice of Big Media:

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh

The other thing the great Carl Bernstein reported should've got him another Pulitzer:

The CIA and the Media

His old paper still hits a homer on occasion, most recently on how the Government has privatized Secret Government:

Top Secret America: A Hidden World.

America's mass media were virtually silent about that series, too.

And that is why our nation creeps, literally and figuratively, rightward toward the "national security state" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. described to Charlie Rose.

PS: This post really has four things everyone should know about Corporate McPravda. I know you know that, Monkie, but for those new to the subject, a shock.

[Monkie]

54. in the kingdom of the blind it is easy to recognise those with a eye.

now i see your name i remember your thoughtful posts from my earlier time spent at this place, i raise my hat and wish you well.

[think4yourself]

16. Thanks for sharing this.

Recommended viewing!

[ReRe]

21. Marking this to come back.... Thomas Drake

.... as soon as I finish listening to DemocracyNow!

[JDPriestly]

50. Amazing! He says this so well.

Thanks for posting this. Vindicates everything I have been saying. I love that video. I'm going to add this to my journal so that I have the link to this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023000144#post28

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. K&R for more visibility!

[bobduca]

9. K&R

[WillyT]

18. K & R !!!

[me b zola]

23. K&R

[think]

29. I hope all those calling Snowden a traitor read this and see what happens

when whistle blowers follow the chain of command:

Snowden saw what I saw: surveillance criminally subverting the constitution

~Snip~

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation....

Full editorial:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution

[Laelth]

33. Superb essay. Well worth reading in its entirety.

This section is particularly telling:

He (Snowden) can expect the worst; he knows that. He went preemptively overseas because that at least delays the prying hand of the US government. But he could be extracted by rendition, as he has said. Certainly, my life was shredded. Once they have determined that you are a "person of interest" and an "enemy of the state", they want to destroy you, period.

I am now reliving the last 12 years from what's been disclosed in the past week. I feel a kinship with Snowden: he is essentially the equivalent of me. He saw the surveillance state from within and saw how far it's gone. The government has a pathological incentive to collect more and more and more; they just can't help themselves – they have an insatiable hoarding complex.

Since the government unchained itself from the constitution after 9/11, it has been eating our democracy alive from the inside out. There's no room in a democracy for this kind of secrecy: it's anathema to our form of a constitutional republic, which was born out of the struggle to free ourselves from the abuse of such powers, which led to the American revolution.

-Laelth

[LondonReign2]

48. Kick

[frylock]

43. knr

[UTUSN]

53. Struggling here: DRAKE wins me over, SNOWDEN (and GREENWALD) strike me false

What IS it, just that something about SNOWDEN and GREENWALD rubs me the wrong way? This other dude, DRAKE, makes his case totally more convincingly to me: First, he presents himself as somebody seasoned and with gravitas, SINCERE in motivations, as in, “If you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made.” Also, he did not turn over materials to reporters or others. Besides that he stuck through it all HERE, and after paying his price, is now free.

SNOWDEN says he doesn’t want the story to be about him, but he just gave more interviews saying he’s in Hong Kong because he trusts THEIR system. And GREENWALD’s interviews show a bitter dude, that brings to mind the book/movie title, “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” as in, “What’s eating Glen GREENWALD?”

QUESTION: When other, “real” whistleblowers have already blown their whistle, what is the new whistle that is being blown? After they (GO THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND) and then pay the price (HERE), they can have their freedom to write books, create foundations or whatever to attempt remedies.

A line wingnuts are trying right now is that in all the load of violations (surveillance or Iraq), “Dems voted FOR them, too!” Uh, Dems are always over the barrel when issues are posed in terms of jingoistic hysteria, when dissent is framed as treason, when the HEAT of 9-11 was at its worst in mob hysteria. It still burns in my memory how Tom DASHELL hugged and kissed Shrub.

[Octafish]

57. Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, wants to protect government whistleblowers...

Another Truth-Teller Steps Forward

by Ray McGovern, June 12, 2013

EXCERPT...

Why would someone like Snowden, a 29-year-old employee of national-security contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, jeopardize what he calls “a very comfortable life” in order to blow the whistle on the U.S. government’s abuse of power?

If what he did sounds weird, this is only because there are so precious few like him who will stand on principle and risk everything. Snowden explained that if the public does not know about these intrusive programs, there is no room for citizen input regarding how they square with our constitutional rights.

SNIP...

He added that he wanted to reveal the “federation of secret law, unequal pardon, and irresistible executive powers that rule the world I love. … What they’re doing poses an existential threat to democracy.”

SNIP...

Citizens cannot make informed choices if they do not have the facts—for example, the facts that have been wrongly concealed about the ongoing war in Iraq: the real reasons behind it, the prospective costs in blood and treasure, and the setback it has dealt to efforts to stem terrorism. Administration deception and cover-up on these vital matters has so far been all too successful in misleading the public.

Many Americans are too young to remember Vietnam. Then, as now, senior government officials did not tell the American people the truth. Now, as then, insiders who know better have kept their silence, as the country was misled into the most serious foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

CONTINUED...

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2013/06/11/another-truth-teller-steps-forward/

PS: When McGovern was a young analyst, he believed his bosses would never lie America into war. Now, he wishes he had been more, eh, aware then.

PPS: No matter which way you see things, I'm proud to be your DU brother, UTUSN.

[UTUSN]

61. Oct, I am humbled and honored in your brotherhood. We are on the same broad, open road even

when I might have to take an occasional detour.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

66. Don't be distracted by the drama

Focus on the message.

[NoMoreWarNow]

72. what's eating Glenn Greenwald is that, for one, he is an American citizen

who can't bring his lover back to the US because of some immigration problem. So he's living in Brazil. Or was.

He's also a strict constitutionalist and has no patience with partisans.

He can be very good but he also can be very sloppy and overly verbose.