NSA web/phone records collection

Manach

According to various news sources (link) most of the US phone records data have been gathered by the NSA.
Wondering what people's opinions' on this. On one hand there is the security aspect of this, as a tool in the war on terror. On the other, a massive fishing expedition that breaches each US citizen's privacy rights.
This has gathered support and condemnation from both main US political parties so should be interesting how the media run with this.

gctest50

old news sure... CALEA and all that has been out for ages

Amerika

Interesting that no major US media outlets have broken any of the scandals that have emerged under this administration.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting that no major US media outlets have broken any of the scandals that have emerged under this administration.

Its on the front page of every major news outlet I've looked at.


What about the new xbox with its camera and microphone very 1984.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Its on the front page of every major news outlet I've looked at.

Yeah okay... after the fact, but my comment was about them breaking the news stories.

And apparently it seems the NY Times is afraid of an IRS audit, phone taps by the DOJ, the wrath of "the most transparent" administration in history, or something.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-editorial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

What about the new xbox with its camera and microphone very 1984.

XBOX… Hell, the government will be able to spy on you through your dishwasher.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah okay... after the fact, but my comment was about them breaking the news stories.

And apparently it seems the NY Times is afraid of an IRS audit, phone taps by the DOJ, the wrath of "the most transparent" administration in history, or something.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-editorial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/

That and the treatment of Bradly Manning is terrible.
You think Romney would be any better?

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

You think Romney would be any better?

Don't rightly know, but I do know the media wouldn't be in the tank for him.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Don't rightly know, but I do know the media wouldn't be in the tank for him.

Which media isn't reporting it? because I'm seeing it everywhere.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Which media isn't reporting it? because I'm seeing it everywhere.

There must be some language problem. I haven’t said the US media didn’t report on any of the scandals. They all have had to report on them after the stories gained traction with the public. But they all seem to be giving pretty good cover for the WH administration in their reporting. And one has to wonder how many of the US main media outlets had these stories and chose not to report on them… until that is they had to? And how many other scandals are out there waiting on the Guardian or the BBC to break, or the Federal agencies themselves letting them out in a preemptive strike.

And what is the buzz word from just about all the US media outlets on the handling by the GOP in investigating these scandals.... "OVERREACH." Where do you all think it came from... the DNC perhaps?

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

There must be some language problem. I haven’t said the US media didn’t report on any of the scandals.

It was a US paper and a UK paper which broke the story.

Obama has had to stand up and address the issue.

It's not like anyone didn't know it was happening, it's the fact that we didn't have the precise details of it. Now we do.

opti0nal

Everything is OK...they dont't spy on Amercians, only everybody else in the world. That's all right then.:rolleyes:

20Cent

The leaker has gone public now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
This is going to be interesting how he is handled. A long prison sentence will cause outrage I bet a lot of people consider him a patriot. If they let him off then what about Bradly Manning who's done pretty much the same thing!

nagilum2

20Cent wrote: »

The leaker has gone public now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
This is going to be interesting how he is handled. A long prison sentence will cause outrage I bet a lot of people consider him a patriot. If they let him off then what about Bradly Manning who's done pretty much the same thing!

This is the difference:

Greenwald: "If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn't end up doing?"

Snowden: "Oh absolutely. Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth. If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention."
...
“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”

20Cent

nagilum2 wrote: »

This is the difference:

Manning sent his data to Wikileaks who sent it to professional journalists to remove any data that could harm individuals. Pretty much the same thing, considering the amount of material Manning leaked it would have been impossible to go through it all himself.

nagilum2

20Cent wrote: »

Manning sent his data to Wikileaks who sent it to professional journalists to remove any data that could harm individuals. Pretty much the same thing, considering the amount of material Manning leaked it would have been impossible to go through it all himself.

Sorry, but I have no idea how you can conclude that this is "pretty much the same thing"???

Manning didn't review what he released, and clearly didn't care about the consequences to individuals. Snowden specifically wanted to highlight illegal activity without putting individuals at risk.

Amerika

I’m holding judgement on Snowden for the time being, as it very well could be just as bad as what Manning did. But the major difference between the two is Snowden specifically put credence to what some politicians, particularly Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ron Wyden of Oregon, have been trying to warn us for years on what was going on at the NSA... and still be in compliance with their restrictions and limitations on what could be said. They have been warning us that the government was engaging in surveillance programs under the Patriot Act that went way way beyond what most would consider a permissible interpretation of that law. Seems these Democrats were quite right.

opti0nal

The context of this story is intriguing:

Obama is lecturing the Chinese on cybersecurity & not hacking US computers.

The NSA is revealed to be harvesting and storing private, personal data on everyone (except, it says: Americans).

The whistleblower says he wants to stay in Hong Kong (in....China).

Now, if you're looking for a 'Cloud' solution - do you trust the USA?

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

According to various news sources most of the US phone records data have been gathered by the NSA. Wondering what people's opinions' on this. On one hand there is the security aspect of this, as a tool in the war on terror. On the other, a massive fishing expedition that breaches each US citizen's privacy rights.

"Nothing new under the Sun." This is old news. Wired magazine did a feature story about No Such Agency building a massive storage city of servers in Utah, and storing all phone, email, IM, etc., communications (published 15 March 2012). They had been doing it for years, but were running out of storage space, hence the new city of servers.

Jonny7

Snowden has gone to ground

If PRISM is as powerful as he claims, they should have no problem finding him

yara

nagilum2 wrote: »

Manning didn't review what he released, and clearly didn't care about the consequences to individuals.

this is bollocks and i don't know how you've managed to deduce this

20Cent

nagilum2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I have no idea how you can conclude that this is "pretty much the same thing"???

Manning didn't review what he released, and clearly didn't care about the consequences to individuals. Snowden specifically wanted to highlight illegal activity without putting individuals at risk.

Manning put no one at risk.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

"Nothing new under the Sun." This is old news. Wired magazine did a feature story about No Such Agency building a massive storage city of servers in Utah, and storing all phone, email, IM, etc., communications (published 15 March 2012). They had been doing it for years, but were running out of storage space, hence the new city of servers.

Nothing new… please move along, because of some article in an obscure magazine?

But why then is it now being called the most explosive national security leak in US history? Why are information chiefs worldwide sounding alarms? Should we blame the major medial outlets for not knowing and screaming from the rooftops about the scope, overreach, and misuse of the Patriot Act on the part of the NSA? I doubt people knew until now the NSA believes they are entitled to collect records for every single American regardless of whether or not we’ve done anything wrong. What will the people in power, or future people in power, use the stored information for?

Do we know there isn’t haphazard probing into all of our personal e-mails? Do we know what the NSA has been doing with their information gathered under the programs? Do we know how far the NSA has gone? Do we know private individuals haven’t been targeted? No, and we won’t until we get an independent investigation into the activities of the NSA.

Here is one thing, and probably the most important thing of all… the people now believe this WH administration has failed to ensure that powerful departments under the Executive branch of the government won’t abuse information they gather, as we now know they have since at least 2010. Specifically the IRS & DOJ. Trust in this White House administration is very low, and deservedly so.

(And things are hopping around here as of late where I live. Snowden’s father and stepmother are locals.)

Jonny7

There have been dozens of stories on this, it's been going on quite heavily since planes flew into the towers, look up project Echelon

It's not like we didn't know it was going on - it's just big news because it became official

It's a security measure, a fairly extreme one, that many people think is over the top. That's where the debate lies.

nagilum2

yara wrote: »

this is bollocks and i don't know how you've managed to deduce this

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero.html

The National Security Agency has already referred the case to the Justice Department, and James Clapper, Obama’s director of National Intelligence, has said that Snowden’s leaks have done “huge, grave damage” to “our intelligence capabilities.”

Before accepting such claims at face value, let’s remind ourselves of what the leaks so far have not contained. They didn’t reveal anything about the algorithms that the N.S.A. uses, the groups or individuals that the agency targets, or the identities of U.S. agents. They didn’t contain the contents of any U.S. military plans, or of any conversations between U.S. or foreign officials. As Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who broke the story, pointed out on “Morning Joe” today, this wasn’t a WikiLeaks-style data dump. “[Snowden] spent months meticulously studying every document,” Greenwald said. “He didn’t just upload them to the Internet.”

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Nothing new… please move along, because of some article in an obscure magazine?

WIRED is a monthly with a total print circulation of 819,457. Its online version received average monthly page views of 76,271,080.

If you had not read last year's WIRED, perhaps you have read USA Today? It's a nationally distributed US newspaper with one of the largest print circulations of 1,817,446 in the United States. USA Today reported 11 May 2006:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth"

"For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others."

Once again, this is OLD NEWS.

KyussBishop

This is not old news. Some things (like certain types of specific phone/messaging wiretapping) were known from the previous illegal wiretapping Bush undertook, and the breadth of the current surveillance laws was suspected of being very broad, but just how broad was not 100% confirmed, because the actual legal interpretations used in applying it are (bizarrely) kept secret, through abuse of 'national security' privileges.

So, the extent of surveillance was heavily suspected yet not fully known/confirmed (allowing Obama's admin to remain unaccountable, by not disclosing any information about it), but now that there is undeniable confirmation from Snowden, it is properly kicking up a storm now, which Obama can't ignore, and which actually looks like it may lead to reform (which will be very good for Snowden, as it makes persecuting him more politically costly).

This is starting to create a notable reaction from many congresspeople (many of them are only hearing of this stuff for the first time), and now Europe is demanding answers from the US, regarding EU citizens privacy; this is a big deal for sure, not old news.

Black Swan

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is not old news.

From WIRED feature/cover article circulated both in print and online media 15 March 2012, this is old news for No Such Agency practices that have been ongoing for over a decade, if not a lot longer (and very much in the old J Edgar Hoover tradition of spying on their own US citizens):

"the NSA has turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens. It has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas."

"Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases..."

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is starting to create a notable reaction from many congresspeople

How far off are the mid-term US elections? Will this political and media controversy mysteriously die immediately after their elections, just like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy?

KyussBishop wrote: »

(many of them are only hearing of this stuff for the first time)

I find it hard to believe that someone running for public office in the US "are only hearing this stuff for the first time," given the huge scandal that occurred during the GW Bush administration in 2006 regarding NSA snooping on millions of American citizen phone and Internet comms?

Nothing on the net or mobile phones is secure or private from No Such Agency or a host of other US domestic interests or foreign governments, including your friendly javahouse wardriving hacker using free snoopware downloaded from the web.

KyussBishop

I saw that article when it was released; from a brief look (I haven't re-read it all), it is the claims of an ex-NSA official, not a rock-solid confirmation like this recent leak is.

The revelations aren't new to people who have been keeping up with the topic, but the level of detail of information directly sourced from the NSA is new, and provides direct undeniable confirmation.

Black Swan wrote:

How far off are the mid-term US elections? Will this political and media controversy mysteriously die immediately after their elections, just like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy?
...
I find it hard to believe that someone running for public office in the US "are only hearing this stuff for the first time," given the huge scandal that occurred during the GW Bush administration in 2006 regarding NSA snooping on millions of American citizen phone and Internet comms?

Nothing on the net or mobile phones is secure or private from No Such Agency or a host of other US domestic interests or foreign governments, including your friendly javahouse wardriving hacker using free snoopware downloaded from the web.

There are already attempts at putting together bills to neuter surveillance, and there looks to be potential for bipartisan support for similar measures, as mentioned in the Guardian article.

The Guardian article also noted, that many of the briefs claimed to have been sent out to congresspeople, were never sent; I agree that they all likely had some level of knowledge of surveillance, but what is important are the details of the knowledge and direct confirmation of the scale of what is going on, that is revealed by this new leak.

KyussBishop

I missed posting this link yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/europe-us-privacy

That is a big deal: Europe directly sending a letter to Eric Holder (US attorney general), demanding answers on the spying programs.

Jonny7

There is a certain irony that Snowden is making a stand in China of all places

Amerika

The White House tells us that in order to stop terrorists, then need to track every one of our phone call and online keystrokes, yet, yet wait for it… it excludes the very places where the majority of homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

And who the hell is the "Sensitive Operations Review Committee?"

But hey, the government did such a good job stopping the Boston Bomber after massive and frightening bells and whistles were sounded over him… Oh Wait!

And we know government agencies like the IRS and DOJ won’t dare abuse the information they "legally" obtain… Oh Crap!

And our police can ask about the legal immigration status of individuals, and deport those here illegally… OMG!

But hey, lets spy on grandma… cause you never know what she might be hiding in that big blue bee hive hairdo.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

The White House tells us that in order to stop terrorists, then need to track every one of our phone call and online keystrokes, yet, yet wait for it… it excludes the very places where the majority of homegrown terrorists are radicalized.



And who the hell is the "Sensitive Operations Review Committee?"

But hey, the government did such a good job stopping the Boston Bomber after massive and frightening bells and whistles were sounded over him… Oh Wait!

And we know government agencies like the IRS and DOJ won’t dare abuse the information they "legally" obtain… Oh Crap!

And our police can ask about the legal immigration status of individuals, and deport those here illegally… OMG!

But hey, lets spy on grandma… cause you never know what she might be hiding in that big blue bee hive hairdo.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

nagilum2

Carcharodon wrote: »

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

I don't support ANY mainstream politician, because they're all liars. But IMO Obama has become worse than Bush, because he specifically and emphatically ran against the very thing that he has now expanded upon.

As for the "it's not a big deal" comment. First, it's a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the constitution, which is itself a reaction to abuse of overly broad warrants issued by the English and was a contributor to fighting the Revolutionary War in the first place. Second, this is the same administration that only a week earlier was fighting charges from having the tax collection service target its political opponents. And it's "not a big deal" that they are now recording everything and can listen in on everything with no warrants? In a word, that's utter BS.

TheSB

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Carcharodon

nagilum2 wrote: »

I don't support ANY mainstream politician, because they're all liars. But IMO Obama has become worse than Bush, because he specifically and emphatically ran against the very thing that he has now expanded upon.

As for the "it's not a big deal" comment. First, it's a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the constitution, which is itself a reaction to abuse of overly broad warrants issued by the English and was a contributor to fighting the Revolutionary War in the first place. Second, this is the same administration that only a week earlier was fighting charges from having the tax collection service target its political opponents. And it's "not a big deal" that they are now recording everything and can listen in on everything with no warrants? In a word, that's utter BS.

Oh the good old constitution, why people still think something written over a hundred years ago is still so relevant is beyond me.
If you honestly think somebody is listening to what your phone calls then you are misguided, it's near impossible.
And on the tax thing.... really...

nagilum2

Carcharodon wrote: »

Oh the good old constitution, why people still think something written over a hundred years ago is still so relevant is beyond me.
If you honestly think somebody is listening to what your phone calls then you are misguided, it's near impossible.
And on the tax thing.... really...

I doubt very much that you are an authority on what is technically possible, and what is not. Regardless, if you're willing to issue a Carte Blanche dismissal of the most important and fundamental legal document underpinning all United States code, we're going to be at an impasse for any productive discussion.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

Well, maybe if we would have gotten the middle of center president we were promised in his campaigns, rather than the progressive on steroids, I might have been able to get behind him.

And sometime the only way to get through to the uninformed voter is through sarcasm, showing the ridiculousness and idiocy of some of what our administration says and does.

But looking back, perhaps it would have played out better if instead of saying "OMG!" on the last point, I should have noted "Insert one of Jon Stewart’s patented humorous looks indicating the stupidity of the NSA arguments, when you look at obvious ways to deter terrorism and we refuse to do things because of political correctness."

Jonny7

Live Q&A on the Guardian now with Snowden

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

Hmm in my opinion, a lot of politically charged and very strong comments in there - he shouldn't be using this as a platform to project his own views, just give the info, which appears strong enough by itself.

cyberhog

Juan Cole has compiled a list of the top ten ways the US media are screwing the public on the spying story.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/screwing-surveillance-redux.html

clairefontaine

TheSB wrote: »

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

Rather than the traitors the Obama administration are.

Espionage is releasing info to the enemy. Snowden did it to the American people.

Jonny7

Snowden with his high profile easily evading US authorities..

if only they had some sort of powerful modern surveillance system to track and find him..

Amerika

Perhaps all he had to do was dress in a Jalabiya or Bist to easily escape without detection… which is like Kryptonite to our powerful modern tracking systems, as surveillance here of mosques is only allowed after obtaining high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department.

[/sarcasm]

FionnMatthew

nagilum2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I have no idea how you can conclude that this is "pretty much the same thing"???

Manning didn't review what he released, and clearly didn't care about the consequences to individuals. Snowden specifically wanted to highlight illegal activity without putting individuals at risk.

Simply false.

Listed below are all the items provided by Manning that Wikileaks published, along with remarks about their sensitivity. Where warranted, I have quoted Manning’s trial statements regarding his thinking at the time about the impact of each leak:

1. Reykjavik13, a diplomatic cable suggesting that Iceland had sought the United States help in resolving a dispute with the United Kingdom over the UK’s use of anti-terrorism legislation to secure payment by Iceland of the guarantees for UK depositors. Since this is a matter that involved neither US intelligence nor military, Manning obviously had no reason to believe it put anyone at risk.

2. ”Collateral Murder “, the military’s gunsight footage from a Baghdad air strike on a group of eleven mostly unarmed people, including two Reuters journalists whose cameras were allegedly mistaken for weapons. Eight people were killed, rescuers were fired upon and children were injured in the attack. There is no national security argument that can be credibly made against the leaking of a video that documents war crimes, particularly one documenting an incident that happened three years before Manning leaked it and which had already been covered in several news accounts.

3. Afghan War Logs/Iraq War Logs, a collection of SigActs, records created by US Military regarding Significant Activities, including civilian deaths. Here is what Manning said in his court statement about their sensitivity:

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation (HN) media.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

4. “Cablegate” leak of 251,287 State Department cables, written by 271 American embassies and consulates in 180 countries, dated December 1966 to February 2010. Manning’s remarks:

Of the documents released, the cables were the only ones I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website. The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption applied only to [unavailable verbatim: he describes information and messages "deemed appropriate for" release and "a wide number of individuals"]. According to the Department of State guidance, for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions limiting distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information [to be] shared with anyone [authorized to] access SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, DoS, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact the SIPDIS caption was for wide distribution made sense to me given how the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion this was the type of information that should become public. I once read [unavailable] a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War [about how] the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with or against each other. I thought these cables were a prime example of the need for more open diplomacy.

Given all of the DoS info I read, the fact most of these cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believed the public release of these cables would not damage the United States. I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing since they represent very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations. In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the DoS, and other government entities, unhappy.

5. Guantanamo Bay Files, a collection of Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), memos giving basic and background information about a specific detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Manning’s trial statement indicates, once again, that he carefully considered intelligence and national security risk:

Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR’s. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide a very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB’s were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very important from either an intelligence or a national security standpoint.

Any discussion of the alleged recklessness of Manning’s leaks must also include the reminder that prior to the publication of the State Department cables, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State, inviting them to “privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed”. Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Adviser, rejected the proposal, stating: “We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials”. Despite the State Department’s apparent lack of urgency, Wikileaks redacted the names of sources and others in potentially vulnerable positions before publishing. Unredacted cables were only published after a security breach by a Guardian writer necessitated it. (Source: Wikipedia).

Similarly, Wikileaks offered to allow the Department of Defense to review the War Logs for potentially risky material, but this offer too was declined. (Source: Salon).

Considering the nature of the leaks themselves, the care with which Manning considered the military and intelligence risk of each document set, and the way both the US State Department and Department of Defense declined to review the leaks and thereby vindicated Manning’s risk assessment, it should come as no surprise that not a single injury to, or death of, U.S. military or intelligence personel can be attributed to his extraordinary whistleblowing.

In other words, Manning’s alleged recklessness is pure legend, a lie told again and again to minimize the real significance of his disclosures, to foster fairy tales about his emotional instability, to justify both the hideous treatment he has received at the hands of the U.S. Military and the disgusting extent to which he has been smeared and trivialized by the few reporters and pundits who even bother with his extremely consequential case.

ThreeBlindMice

TheSB wrote: »

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

The White House controls the US mainstream media, this is the reason why the story has been suppressed. If one wants to hear more of the truth on this matter you would be better sourcing it from Alternative Media channels.

clairefontaine

I feel very strange giving Snowden the thumbs up when six years ago I would have been outraged. Things have just gone too far in this new McCarthy era.

nagilum2

Black Swan wrote: »

WIRED is a monthly with a total print circulation of 819,457. Its online version received average monthly page views of 76,271,080.

If you had not read last year's WIRED, perhaps you have read USA Today? It's a nationally distributed US newspaper with one of the largest print circulations of 1,817,446 in the United States. USA Today reported 11 May 2006:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth"

"For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others."

Once again, this is OLD NEWS.

From that article:

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

Except now we know how that court approval process was carried out in bulk, and in secret. And, now we know that leaders of these organizations (Clapper) have been lying about the extent of it to congressional oversight committees.

The devil is in the details, and the details are what has caused the uproar. The knowledge of the extent of the program and the degree to which it is being applied is very new. And if the Amash amendment passes today (http://www.defundthensa.com), then this conversation will continue further.

Jonny7

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

The White House controls the US mainstream media, this is the reason why the story has been suppressed. If one wants to hear more of the truth on this matter you would be better sourcing it from Alternative Media channels.

Washington doesn't control thousands of media outlets all over the world.

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

As opposed to mainstream news media?

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

If i just slightly alter what you have said, it would be quite true...

I don't recommend "mainstream" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just ''corporate'' websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

If i just slightly alter what you have said, it would be quite true...

I don't recommend "mainstream" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just ''corporate'' websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

Interesting! can't wait to see all the examples of this..

lets choose a very mainstream site, www.bbc.co.uk/news, over the last week.