[ATTACH=CONFIG]4834[/ATTACH]

It's been said patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels

For the Hollow Men, it is "National Security"

That Lone Gunman, why, that's a terrible thing--we could tell you, but we'd have to kill you. . . .

. . .for you see, we did the black deed and used him--

We demonized him, we demonized Bradley Manning, we shall demonize Edward Snowden, we have gagged Sybil Edmonds,

because you can't handle the truth: we surveil everybody all the time;

we don't need not steenkeeng warrant.

Enemy of the State (1998) prescient.

Did the Hollow Men build a million-square-foot data center in Utah to defend your constitutional rights, or to end them.

I wonder if Edward Snowdon's revelations will go the same way as Mark Klein's earlier revelations on the same subject? Nowhere?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ut-worse.&
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...-Facility&
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Israelis.&

Icelandic MP offers Snowden asylum assistance







Icelandic politician Birgitta Jonsdottir Credit: örg Carstensen/DPA/Press Association ImagesIcelandic member of parliament and privacy rights campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir has offered asylum assistance to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
In a statement with Smari McCarthy, executive director of Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, Jonsdottir said she felt duty bound to help and advise the 29-year-old:
"Whereas IMMI is based in Iceland, and has worked on protections of privacy, furtherance of government transparency, and the protection of whistleblowers, we feel it is our duty to offer to assist and advise Mr. Snowden to the greatest of our ability.
"We are already working on detailing the legal protocols required to apply for asylum, and will be seeking a meeting with the newly appointed interior minister of Iceland, [...] to discuss whether an asylum request can be processed in a swift manner, should such an application be made."
It is not clear whether Snowden has made an asylum application to Iceland.

Analysis of Briitsh Foreign Secretary William Hague's limited hangout, presumably agreed in advance with both British and Yankee spook agencies:

Quote:William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say

Nick Hopkins analyses the foreign secretary's statement to the Commons on Britain's links with the secret NSA operation

Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 June 2013 19.54 BST

William Hague said the UK had 'one of the strongest systems of checks and balances for intelligence'
William Hague said the UK had 'one of the strongest systems of checks and balances for secret intelligence in the world'. Photograph: Reuters

William Hague's statement to the House of Commons offered a straightforward and robust defence of GCHQ, the legal framework in which it operates, and the challenges the intelligence agencies face in their efforts to stop terrorist attacks.

But the foreign secretary did nothing to address the long-standing concerns of campaigners and academics over the regulatory system in which those agencies work; neither did he try to draw a distinction between the different types of data being gathered, or why the laws in this area are now deemed to be verging on irrelevant.

Refusing to be drawn on specifics, he also declined to comment on the leaked documents that showed GCHQ has had long-standing access to the Prism programme, set up by America's National Security Agency to garner information about "foreigners", including Britons.

Hague began with reference to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, which will receive a preliminary report on GCHQ and the Prism programme on Tuesday. By coincidence, the ISC, which is chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, is in Washington this week and will see officials from the NSA on Wednesday.

Below are extracts from Hague's statement to the Commons, followed by analyses of what they may mean and the issues they fail to address.

On the intelligence and security committee

"The ISC's work is one part of the strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight that governs the use of secret intelligence in the UK. At its heart are the Intelligence Services Act of 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [RIPA] of 2000.The acts require GCHQ and the other agencies to seek authorisation for their operations from a secretary of state."

The ISC has been criticised in the past for being toothless, and now has some beefed-up powers. But for a body that has only one general investigator, a former police officer, its task of overseeing MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is huge.

Critics say it has to know what it is looking for to make scrutiny effective. Professor Peter Sommer, a cyber-security expert, said: "I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask."

Angela Patrick, the director of human rights policy at Justice, said relying on RIPA to keep the agencies accountable was extraordinary because it was so outdated. She also questioned why politicians were left to take such important decisions.

"Of around 3 million surveillance decisions made by public bodies since the RIPA came into force, less than 0.5% have ever been considered by a judge. Accountability for how the agencies handle our private information, even when gathered in the UK, lies predominantly with government."

On interception

"To intercept the content of any individual's communications in the UK requires a warrant signed personally by me, the home secretary, or by another secretary of state. This is no casual process. Every decision is based on extensive legal and policy advice. Warrants are legally required to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted, and we judge them on that basis."

The key word here is "content". MI5 and the police secured 2,300 warrants last year for information contained in the messages and emails of Britons. Those kind of interceptions require ministerial approval. But other kinds of simple data the phone numbers, times and locations of phone calls do not meet that ministerial threshold, and can be garnered with the approval of a more junior official. Last year law enforcement agencies requested information from telecoms companies on 500,000 occasions. That is a massive amount of raw data being held without extensive legal advice.

On independent commissioners

"All the authorisations the home secretary and I give are subject to independent review by an intelligence services commissioner and an interception of communications commissioner, both of whom report directly to the prime minister."

Like the ISC, the commissioners have limited members of staff, and a daunting task. The interception commissioner is understood to have just five analysts, though that could be doubled to 10. Even then, it is a very small complement for a body attempting to review half a million telecoms request as part of its remit. With so much to scrutinise, the commissioner has to rely on samples of documents and, like the ISC, he has to know what he is looking for.

The commissioner is also supposed to assess whether the requests from the agencies are made out of "necessity and proportionality". But the commissioner's report has not found any single violation in nine years. Which suggests, critics say, that the commissioner isn't looking very hard, or the agencies are completely spotless.

On accountability

"This combination of needing a warrant from one of the most senior members of the government, with such decisions reviewed by independent commissioners and implemented by agencies with strong legal and ethical frameworks, with the addition of parliamentary scrutiny by the ISC, provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability for secret intelligence anywhere in the world."

Critics would argue that the current system relies on trusting politicians rather than judges to make the right calls, an under-resourced parliamentary committee, and commissioners who don't have enough staff. And the laws themselves have failed to keep up with technological innovations.

Privacy International said: "Let's not forget: without the release of these classified documents, Mr Hague would not have had to make his statements before the Commons today, and it remains unlikely the news of this programme and the UK's involvement with Prism would have come to light. It should not take a whistleblower releasing classified information for the government to be forthright with its citizens about what data they collect and in what manner.

"If the government secretly interprets the law, and if the manner in which it is executed is secret, then the law is effectively secret. There are many questions that remain unanswered."

On GCHQ

"It has been suggested GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around UK law, obtaining information that they cannot legally obtain in the UK. I wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the US involving UK nationals is subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards."

This is the nub of the issue and the foreign secretary's statement seems to mask a much more complex picture. If a UK agency wanted to tap the phone of a Briton living in the UK, it would have to get ministerial approval through RIPA. But not all telecoms and internet companies are based in the UK most of the giants have their headquarters in the US. This is where the UK's relationship with the NSA is critical. If the firm storing the required information is outside RIPA's authority, GCHQ could ask the NSA for help.

And if the NSA had any relevant intelligence, via Prism or any other programme, it could give it to GCHQ. Strictly speaking, GCHQ would still have needed a RIPA authorisation if it was requesting this material. But if the NSA was offering, the same principles don't appear to apply.

Matthew Ryder QC said: "It is not the breaking of laws that is most troubling in this area, but the absence of them. Foreigners storing their personal data on US servers have neither the protection that their own domestic laws would give them from their own governments, nor the protection that US citizens have from the US government. It is foreigners, potentially UK citizens in the UK, who are the targets of programmes like Prism.

"Once such data is in the hands of the US authorities, there is no clear legal framework that prevents it from being shared with UK authorities. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 place MI5, MI6 and GCHQ on a statutory basis, and permit those bodies to receive any information from foreign agencies in the 'proper discharge' of their statutory functions.

"Under that broad principle, UK agencies may receive and examine data from the US about UK citizens without having to comply with any of the legal requirements they would have to meet if the same agencies had tried to gather that information themselves."

I want more to be exposed to the disinfectant sunlight.
I want someone to answer to WeThePeople,
not the captive congress critters protected by the legends
to be spread by the BBC and MSNBC and all the MSM.
Fascism has gone quite far enough.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Analysis of Briitsh Foreign Secretary William Hague's limited hangout, presumably agreed in advance with both British and Yankee spook agencies:

Quote:William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say


William Hague's statement to the House of Commons offered a straightforward and robust defence of GCHQ, the legal framework in which it operates, and the challenges the intelligence agencies face in their efforts to stop terrorist attacks.

But the foreign secretary did nothing to address the long-standing concerns of campaigners and academics over the regulatory system in which those agencies work; neither did he try to draw a distinction between the different types of data being gathered, or why the laws in this area are now deemed to be verging on irrelevant.

Refusing to be drawn on specifics, he also declined to comment on the leaked documents that showed GCHQ has had long-standing access to the Prism programme, set up by America's National Security Agency to garner information about "foreigners", including Britons.

Hague began with reference to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, which will receive a preliminary report on GCHQ and the Prism programme on Tuesday. By coincidence, the ISC, which is chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, is in Washington this week and will see officials from the NSA on Wednesday.

Yeah, purely a coincidence....
What a lot of hot air Hague blows there. The real information is in what he doesn't say.

Did You Know that NSA Spymasters Are Involved in the War on Drugs?

A lot of people don't realize that the NSA has a mandate to "stem the flow of narcotics into the country."



June 10, 2013 |



Yesterday I posted a little tid-bit about the NSA proposing some years back to "re-think the 4th Amendment" in a once secret (now de-classified) document. I was reading it over again this morning and happened upon this little tid-bit:







So, for all those who worry about ham-stringing the government in its noble quest to protect us from the boogeyman, where exactly does this fit into the matrix of concerns? Are we all ok with the NSA doing secret surveillance of Americans' activities with a mandate to "stem the flow of narcotics into our country"?
Remember, this document was written long before any alleged terrorist plots featuring Mexican drug lords existed. This was about drug interdiction, period. That's not to say that in recent years the DEA and the National Security apparatus haven't pretty much merged under the umbrella of "narco-terrorism". But the NSA has been involved in the drug war for a very long time.
Is everyone comfortable with that, knowing what we know about how much information they're collecting?
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politic...53089&t=17

Daniel Ellsberg: Edward Snowden, Saving Us From the United Stasi of America

Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution.



June 10, 2013 |


In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement like the one we had against the war in Vietnam or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
So we have fallen into Senator Church's abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.
But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect.
Editor's note: this article was revised and updated at the author's behest, at 7.45am ET on 10 June
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...si-america

I consider Scott Creighton to be an essential read and sometimes just flat wrong but always entertaining. He raises what are not much more than WAG's (Wild Ass Guesses) about Edward Snowden, which I once again confess to find at least intriguing. Now, Damien Thompson of The Telegraph, (oh ... isn't that a Murdoch rag?), is saying that Obama might not survive this latest scandal and that it is worse than Watergate:

Quote:"They could pay off the Triads," says Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower interviewed by the Guardian in his Hong Kong hideout. Meaning: the CIA could use a proxy to kill him for revealing that Barack Obama has presided over an unimaginable to the ordinary citizen expansion of the Federal government's powers of surveillance over anyone.

Libertarians and conspiracy theorists of both Left and Right will never forget this moment. Already we have Glenn Beck hailing Snowden on Twitter:

Courage finally. Real. Steady. Thoughtful. Transparent. Willing to accept the consequences. Inspire w/Malice toward none.#edwardsnowden

Snowden will be a Right-wing hero as well as a Left-libertarian one. Why? First, he thought carefully about what he should release, avoiding (he says) material that would harm innocent individuals. Second, he's formidably articulate. Quotes like the following are pure gold for opponents of Obama who've been accusing the President of allowing the Bush-era "surveillance state" to extend its tentacles even further:

NSA is focussed on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible… Increasingly we see that it's happening domestically. The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone, it ingests them by default, it collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and its stores them for periods of time … While they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so. Any analyst at any time can target anyone…

I do not see how Obama can talk his way out of this one. Snowden is not Bradley Manning: he's not a disturbed disco bunny but a highly articulate network security specialist who has left behind a $200,000 salary and girlfriend in Hawaii for a life on the run. He's not a sleazy opportunist like Julian Assange, either. As he says: "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

It will be very difficult for the Obama administration to portray Snowden as a traitor. For a start, I don't think US public opinion will allow it. Any explanations it offers will be drowned out by American citizens demanding to know: "So how much do you know about me and my family? How can I find out? How long have you been collecting this stuff? What are you going to do with it?"
Suddenly the worse-than-Watergate rhetoric doesn't seem overblown. And I do wonder: can a president who's presided over, and possibly encouraged, Chinese-style surveillance of The Land of the Free honestly expect to serve out his full term?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damian...full-term/

As this thing plays out, keep in mind all the things that would point to an engineered leak designed to do any number of things, some of which we cannot yet imagine. But they would all be under the rubric of strategy of tension.

I am quite willing to be talked out of this. But at this time, this is my leading theory.

Lauren, I respectfully submit that I think you're on the wrong track. I can not see how this could be played into a strategy of tension or have been of benefit as a planned leak. The government is on the defensive now and sadly, my guess is that Snowden will soon find himself in a Bradley Manning 'moment' and situation.....life imprisonment or death sentence for treason. They might even dispense with a trial and all the nasty things that would drag into the open and just have him killed. He has just checked out of his hotel and 'disappeared' - no one knows if on his own or by opposition 'forces'. I sense him to be what he portrays himself to be....a whistleblower and one deeply in danger of his life and liberty for telling the truth.