Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×
Don't just read! Be part of the Community! Join the conversation ×

Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

News_Editor

By News_Editor
in World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots

Plot Foiled To Bomb New York Stock Exchange

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-surveillance-programs-foiled-more-than-50-terrorist-plots/2013/06/18/d657cb56-d83e-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, NSA Commander General Keith B. Alexander (4 stars) said the surveillance programs had helped prevent an attack on the subway system in New York City and the bombing of a Danish newspaper. Sean Joyce, deputy director of the FBI, described two additional plots Tuesday that he said were stopped through the surveillance — a plan by a Kansas City, Mo., man to bomb the New York Stock Exchange and efforts by a San Diego man to send money to terrorists in Somalia

Gen Alexander said that more than 90 percent of the information on the foiled plots came from a program targeting the communications of foreigners, known as PRISM. The program was authorized under Section 702 of a 2008 law that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The law authorizes the NSA to collect e-mails and other Internet communications to and from foreign targets overseas who are thought to be involved in terrorism or nuclear proliferation or who might provide critical foreign intelligence. No American in the country or abroad can be targeted without a warrant, and no person inside the United States can be targeted without a warrant.

Gen Alexander also emphasized that, “As Americans, we value our privacy and our civil liberties. As Americans, we also value our security and our safety. In the 12 years since the attacks on September 11, we have lived in relative safety and security as a nation. That security is a direct result of the intelligence community’s quiet efforts to better connect the dots and learn from the mistakes that permitted those attacks to occur on 9/11.”

Referring to the leaks to newspapers by computer program analyst Edward Snowden, Robert S. Litt, general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said, “We are now faced with a situation that, because this information has been made public, we run the risk of losing these collection capabilities.”

Well said, but I think though that even the national security officials who testified today have some reservations concerning the effectiveness of the phone data collection capabilities they were given by the Patriot Act. Gen Alexander, who is also commanding general of U.S. Cyber Command, stated his willingness to have the phone companies keep possession of the collected data. I don't know anyway of any necessary usefulness of the data, given that the data do not include the content of calls, location data or a subscriber’s name and address. I feel a little safer about the vagueness of the data, but also wonder why, because of its vagueness, the data is collected at all. Maybe having the phone number itself may serve its useful purpose, but I haven't heard anything of that.

This guy lied to Congress 14 times last year in just one hearing. why should anyone believe anything he says? BTW, 2 days ago they claimed their domestic spying stopped 20 terrorist attacks globally. I guess that bullshit story didn't get enough traction so now it's 50. Of the 20 they claimed 2 days ago 14 were cases of entrapping innocent people. Alexander is a liar as was the CIA guy who was lying to Congress a few weeks ago about the existence of domestic surveillance networks.

The problem comes when people become nihilist, when they don't believe anyone or anything - when they deny that honest differences can exist and when they dismiss any possibility that people are basically good and act in good faith. You are talking about a four-star general who is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and has sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States.

Those who are extreme and intemperate are therefore not credible.

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

chuckd Diamond Member

chuckd

Posted
Posted

" You are talking about a four-star general who is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and has sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States.

Those who are extreme and intemperate are therefore not credible."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These singular accomplishments don't make him either infallible or believable.

I have known and worked with many General Officers during my career. Not all of them are the paragons of virtue you describe.

The definition of "Those who are extreme and intemperate" would seem to revolve around one's own personal agenda when assessing those particular traits.

How would you describe General McChrystal for instance? He certainly fits your criteria for honesty and truthfulness.

wealth Silver Member

wealth

Posted
Posted

he got quite a warm welcome from Merkel in Germany. The internet spying program was discussed in detail almost behind closed doors. At the Brandenburger Tor Obama defended Prism since it has foiled "exactly" 50 terror attacks. No mention in what time frame.

After playing the American and the German Hymn they played the farewell song "smooth criminal" (Michael Jackson). 555 ... just half an hour ago.

snarky66 Silver Member

snarky66

Posted
Posted

Why is the metadata not protected by the 4th amendment? Because there are no names associated to the phone numbers.

You need a FISA court order for that.

JDGRUEN Platinum Member

JDGRUEN

Posted
Posted

Napolitano: NSA Testimony on Surveillance Programs 'Bogus'

Former state court Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Tuesday that officials from the National Security Agency “answered questions professionally” in their testimony before Congress — “but I still think it’s bogus.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/napolitano-nsa-surveillance-bogus/2013/06/18/id/510634?s=al&promo_code=13DF7-1#ixzz2Wg2NzMD4

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

Napolitano: NSA Testimony on Surveillance Programs 'Bogus'

Former state court Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Tuesday that officials from the National Security Agency “answered questions professionally” in their testimony before Congress — “but I still think it’s bogus.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/napolitano-nsa-surveillance-bogus/2013/06/18/id/510634?s=al&promo_code=13DF7-1#ixzz2Wg2NzMD4

Andrew Napolitano is a former state court judge who never handled a federal case. He's a rightwing television celebrity and is being quoted by a notoriously right wing news organization that speaks only with its own kind, i.e., it is an inbred news organization.

That's what's bogus here.

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

Sen Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, is putting the reason we have the Patriot Act as it is squarely where it belongs, on the Congress, which enacted the legislation in 2001 and reauthorized it twice, in 2008 and in 2011.

Congress needs to reexamine the Patriot Act to either eliminate it entirely or to modify it significantly and substantially.

Bernie Sanders Strikes a Blow for Privacy With New Bill To Limit the Patriot Act

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/14/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-limit-patriot-act.html

FDog Gold Member

FDog

Posted
Posted

Why is it the secret court has not been taken to task for ordering that all phone records etc, both foreign and domestic be provided to the NSA.

The NSA has no authority re domestic issues.

The clowns in Congress are already addressing this issue, as is the White House.

Congress has introduced legislation to make the Fisa court more transparent, along with several other concerns about the court and its procedures. The White House has expressed a keen interest in opening the court more to public scrutiny. These matters will take months, if not a year or so, but the cavalry is on the way.

Gen Michael Hayden ret said on Meet the Press the past Sunday that when he moved from director of NSA to director of the CIA, he found that he had to "shave a couple of points off" the activities of the CIA in order to get more political and public support for CIA activities in general. Gen Hayden says that now NSA and the Fisa court needs to do the same, i.e., become less efficient (secret) in the interests of democratic accountability which, in turn, provides political sustainability, support.

The problem has been identified. The solutions are in process. The end result, after a time, is something everyone can evaluate, based on our own input. I'm certain that, if necessary, and the 4th Amendment issues get to the Supreme Court, the 4th Amendment will be applied to the issue of the data - how could it not be applied?

Addressing what issue? That the NSA are acting illegally? Surely the NSA knows it is acting illegally, surely the court knows that. But they think because the court is in secret that they won't be caught.

How about they just act within the law to start with then they won't have anything to address.

Seems just like a guy convicted of murder and upon sentencing showing a lot of remorse. He didn't show the remorse until he was caught though.

Same as the NSA, caught with their pants down and now only is the govt trying to address it. It's a complete joke.

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here we go with the Congress again, piling on against us laws we either don't know about or hear almost nothing of until it's too late. Well, it's not too late at this point to get Congress to change this law along with other offensive or questionable laws, such as the Patriot Act as it's presently written and amended.

Mueller: FBI uses drones for surveillance over US soil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22976598#

Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to open up US airspace to unmanned aircraft by October 2015.

The aerospace industry predicts there will be 30,000 drones deployed globally within five years, half of them in the US, the Associated Press news agency reports. Wherever one finds an act of this Republican Congress, one will find a bucket of bucks there too along with private industry and their anonymous to us lobbyists.

The Senate committee's chairwoman, Sen Dianne Feinstein, told the FBI director she believes that unmanned planes are the biggest threat to Americans' privacy, especially their use by private firms.

Concerning a related issue of drones, in May, US President Barack Obama said he would curtail the use of armed drones in operations outside the US.

Under the new policy described by the White House, the US will only allow drones to be used in areas that are not overt war zones when there was a "continuing, imminent threat" to the US and capture was not feasible.

Congress keeps giving the executive laws we don't like. At least we are reading in this report of some clear sense of restraint on the part of the executive branch of the federal government. But the old principle still applies, i.e., give the executive a law and they'll use it in one way or another.

How do we control Congress when the kind of people they know first and foremost are lobbyists for private corporations?

I didn't hear anything about this from Snowden's leaks to two foreign newspapers and one in the U.S.

Edited by Publicus
F430murci Platinum Member

F430murci

Posted
Posted

Why is it the secret court has not been taken to task for ordering that all phone records etc, both foreign and domestic be provided to the NSA.

The NSA has no authority re domestic issues.

The clowns in Congress are already addressing this issue, as is the White House.

Congress has introduced legislation to make the Fisa court more transparent, along with several other concerns about the court and its procedures. The White House has expressed a keen interest in opening the court more to public scrutiny. These matters will take months, if not a year or so, but the cavalry is on the way.

Gen Michael Hayden ret said on Meet the Press the past Sunday that when he moved from director of NSA to director of the CIA, he found that he had to "shave a couple of points off" the activities of the CIA in order to get more political and public support for CIA activities in general. Gen Hayden says that now NSA and the Fisa court needs to do the same, i.e., become less efficient (secret) in the interests of democratic accountability which, in turn, provides political sustainability, support.

The problem has been identified. The solutions are in process. The end result, after a time, is something everyone can evaluate, based on our own input. I'm certain that, if necessary, and the 4th Amendment issues get to the Supreme Court, the 4th Amendment will be applied to the issue of the data - how could it not be applied?

Addressing what issue? That the NSA are acting illegally? Surely the NSA knows it is acting illegally, surely the court knows that. But they think because the court is in secret that they won't be caught.

How about they just act within the law to start with then they won't have anything to address.

Seems just like a guy convicted of murder and upon sentencing showing a lot of remorse. He didn't show the remorse until he was caught though.

Same as the NSA, caught with their pants down and now only is the govt trying to address it. It's a complete joke.

That is the problem. You guys are arguing what is legal and not legal, but I am not sure you guys really know. I think we all have feelings and beliefs as to what should be permissible, but we do not know what evidence was presented at these hearings, the precise scope of the warrant or the purpose of the warrant.

I don't like this stuff either, but I am concerned that the legality of what is happening has already been decided to be within the bounds of the law. I just don't think you people get it. The 4th Amendment has been severely eroded for some time now and that is what pisses me off. You guys are focusing on the trees and not the forest.

midas Ruby Member

midas

Posted
Posted
Assange Says WikiLeaks Team Aiding Snowden on Iceland
Julian Assange, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, said his legal advisers have talked with lawyers for Edward Snowden to help arrange asylum in Iceland for the American contractor who leaked information on U.S. electronic surveillance methods to newspapers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/assange-says-wikileaks-team-aiding-snowden-on-iceland.html

  • Like 2
chuckd Diamond Member

chuckd

Posted
Posted
Assange Says WikiLeaks Team Aiding Snowden on Iceland
Julian Assange, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, said his legal advisers have talked with lawyers for Edward Snowden to help arrange asylum in Iceland for the American contractor who leaked information on U.S. electronic surveillance methods to newspapers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/assange-says-wikileaks-team-aiding-snowden-on-iceland.html

Why not? They've done such a cracking job for Assange.laugh.png

  • Like 1
Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

Extradition requests being a complicated and lengthy process is not news to most of us, as we've seen in the UK and other countries when the U.S. or other governments try to extradite extremist radical Muslim clerics and other terrorists. (Thaksin way back when got bounced out of the UK very quickly but he was just a run of the mill political hot potato.)

Snowden extradition may be complicated process if criminal charges are filed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/snowden-extradition-may-be-complicated-process-if-criminal-charges-are-filed/2013/06/19/c525a4b8-d8e6-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html

Given Snowden's many options, I'd wonder where he's getting or going to get the money to pay the expensive extradition lawyers for the next year or two. My own life savings likely couldn't manage that. The Washington Post article also indicates Snowden could be imprisoned in HKG throughout the entire legal process, whether it's to resist extradition or to seek political asylum.

The feds still haven't charged Johar in the Boston Marathon Bombings case, so it's clear the Justice Department takes its deliberate time in filing charges in high profile cases. With this case involving either extradition or political asylum, it may be some time yet before charges are filed. Meanwhile, Snowden's HKG visitor's visa expires in mid-August, so he's got to make a move to stay or leave HKG sometime within the next two months - if he's still there (which is likely, but I don't know).

Snowden isn't Thaksin, but Beijing tossed Thaksin from HKG despite Thaksin's confidence he could set up shop there, much closer to Thailand than where he ended up, Dubai. If Beijing wanted to do something in the Snowden case, it would happen quickly and decisively.

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

The feds still haven't charged Johar in the Boston Marathon Bombings case

How are they holding him? Is he being held for state charges?

The feds asked the judge for an extension, allowed by law, to the normal deadline of 30 days to file charges. The lawful extension keeps Johar lawfully in the custody of the feds. Haven't heard anything as to what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might be doing - nothing of consequence or so it would seem.

Scott Star Member

Scott

Posted
Posted

I haven't kept up with the ins-and-outs of the case, but I would wonder if Snowden would be of much use to the Chinese at this point. He is pretty low on the intelligence food chain to have much useful information stashed away.

The Chinese are a little more practical than Western gov'ts and less likely to make a big political statement by giving him asylum or refuge. If he's passed his use-by date, they are more likely to discard him. They could, however, keep him safe for political leverage with the US.

Again, not sure, but just my thoughts.

wealth Silver Member

wealth

Posted
Posted

Reuters has few details on what exactly raised questions about Snowden, and how those questions were answered, presumably by Snowden himself. He'd previously gotten security clearance after a USIS investigation — they're a private firm hired by the U.S. to do background checks. Snowden had top-secret clearance. As Reuters notes, Snowden was just one of 480,000 contractors with that clearance level, so the U.S. is probably looking for a way to avoid a repeat performance. On Thursday, the Senate held a hearing to look at how the government evaluates whether an employee or contractor is fit to handle confidential information. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated that USIS “is under active criminal investigation,” but didn't specify whether it related specifically to Snowden's case, or predated it.


Meanwhile, there's been a development in Snowden's plan to avoid extradition, maybe: An Icelandic businessman offered to fly the whistleblower to his country in a private jet, should Iceland guarantee Snowden asylum. Previously, Wikileaks had pledged to help Snowden accomplish the same mission. According to Reuters, the private jet-sending businessman runs a company that processed payments for Wikileaks back when other institutions cut off their access to donations.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/snowdens-resume-raised-questions-booz-allen-hired-him-anyway/66466/


Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

The U.S. Government can revoke its passport issued to Snowden even though no charges against him have yet been filed. The law says if a U.S. passport holder is not eligible now for a new passport, the existing one can be revoked. I doubt very much Snowden is presently eligible to obtain a passport.

The government of Iceland, or any other government, would have to make up its own mind about Snowden showing up while holding a revoked passport, if that's what the U.S. government chooses to do.

Snowden also has to clear immigration in Hong Kong, were he to choose to leave the territory of the PRC.

wealth Silver Member

wealth

Posted
Posted

The U.S. Government can revoke its passport issued to Snowden even though no charges against him have yet been filed. The law says if a U.S. passport holder is not eligible now for a new passport, the existing one can be revoked. I doubt very much Snowden is presently eligible to obtain a passport.

The government of Iceland, or any other government, would have to make up its own mind about Snowden showing up while holding a revoked passport, if that's what the U.S. government chooses to do.

Snowden also has to clear immigration in Hong Kong, were he to choose to leave the territory of the PRC.

too late I think ... he's gone and free ... by now ...

Sayonarax Gold Member

Sayonarax

Posted
Posted

Beijing isn't going to allow one person to upset bilateral relations, but it might find some further use of having Snowden in Hong Kong. Snowden is giving Beijing a lot of propaganda and seems happy to continue to do so.

Edward Snowden: “Truth is Coming and It Cannot be Stopped.”

http://goldenageofgaia.com/2013/06/edward-snowden-truth-is-coming-and-it-cannot-be-stopped/

propaganda lol. Yeah Putin is full of propaganda also, nah wait, the only propaganda being spewed out of anyone's mouth is Obama.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






ASEANNOW

ASEANNOW (formerly Thai Visa) Thailand's oldest and most popular forum for expats and foreigners.

Sign up today and have your say

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US

219/59 Asoke Towers, 15th Floor, Soi Sukhumvit 21, Watthana, Bangkok 10110
(+66) 99 196 1100
[email protected]

×
×
  • Create New...