Former NSA Director Confronted on Surveillance Abuse

Duke Talk 3-SFrom left: David Schanzer (moderator), Barton Gellman & Michael Hayden.

 

Former Director of the National Security Agency Michael Hayden was confronted about his complicity in illegal warrantless surveillance at a recent public event hosted by Duke University.  He appeared at the event with Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman to discuss the controversy over leakers and whistleblowers.

 

Hayden was Director of the NSA following 9/11 during the Bush administration when the decision was made to secretly spy on American citizens without the required warrants – a blatant violation of the FISA surveillance law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  Violations of are punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years imprisonment for each infraction.  Hayden and others complicit in the illegal surveillance have never been prosecuted or even investigated for their crimes.

 

Hayden left the government 2009 for a top position with a national security contractor.  He now appears frequently on TV talk shows as an expert on the current NSA controversy, basically defending government surveillance practices.

 

During the question and answer session following the Duke talk, I asked Hayden how he justified turning the NSA on the American population, a question that is never asked by the friendly media outlets he normally appears on.  In his response, he lays out his version of how and why NSA undertook its warrantless surveillance, and why he thinks it is legal and necessary.  Barton Gellman fills in some of the history of how it happened.

 

[vimeo 79559824 w=500]

 

Hayden is resorting to the same defense that the officials who created and ordered the secret US torture program successfully used to escape any accountability:  That he is off the hook because government attorneys told him it was OK.  Using the same kind of twisted logic that Justice Department lawyers concocted to protect torturers with the infamous “torture memos,” Hayden argues that what he did is lawful because the President as Commander in Chief has expansive authorities during wartime.

 

At one point in the discussion Hayden called Edward Snowden a “hunter” who set out from the beginning to find NSA secrets and expose them, not a whistleblower who acted out of concern for wrongdoing that he discovered.  Like other pro-NSA officials, Hayden insists that Snowden, instead of going public, should have brought his concerns to appropriate authorities and Congressional intelligence committees.  One only has to look at the experience of Thomas Drake and other NSA whistleblowers, to know that going through “official channels” would only result in Snowden being targeted for harassment and prosecution.

 

Current NSA Director Keith Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have been caught lying to Congress, and like Hayden, they are escaping prosecution. The glaring reality is that many of those who are calling for Snowden to be prosecuted and imprisoned are themselves criminals who are walking free.

 

-David Kasper

New York City – It’s a Wrap

We’re here at LaGuardia Airport, thinking back on the last week and a half of NYC interviews including a side trip to Vermont. What a privilege it has been to meet and interview so many great people.

We will be posting some new video clips soon.

View from the ACLU HQ
This picture was taken from the ACLU headquarters. We could watch the helicopters land and ships come in under the Brooklyn Bridge as we set up for the interview.

Our last two interviews were with Michael Ratner and Hina Shamsi.

Michael Ratner is an attorney, activist, and former President for the Center or Constitutional Rights. He currently represents Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He was also present at the trail of Bradley Manning (now Chelsey Manning.) You can check out some of his interviews on Democracy Now.

Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. She has litigated cases upholding the freedoms of speech and association, and challenging targeted killing, torture, unlawful detention, and post-9/11 discrimination against racial and religious minorities.

Off to DC … Again

We are busy getting ready for our next round of interviews in Washington, DC. Check out this lineup of experts ranging from attorneys, activists, whistleblowers, former CIA Officers and other key players.

Follow us next week as we interview:

Philip Giraldi – August 21st – Former counter terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer.

Bruce Fein – August 22nd – Attorney, specializing in Constitutional and International Law. He is currently working with Edward Snowden’s family to defend him against espionage charges.

Tim Lynch – August 23rd – Attorney and Director of the Project On Criminal Justice at the CATO Institute exert in the militarization of police tactics.

Medea Benjamin – August 24th – Political Activist and co-founder of Code Pink and author of “Drone Warfare: Killing By Remote Control.”

Danielle Brian – August 26th – Executive Director for the Project On Government Oversight, (POGO) Her areas of specialty include: national security, wasteful defense spending, ethics, open government and whistleblower Issues.

Russell Tice – August 26th – Former intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). He was one of the sources for the New York Times exposé article revealing the illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens during the Bush administration in 2005.

Kate Martin – August 27th – Director for the Center for National Security Studies, she is an expert in national security and civil liberties issues.

– Wendy White

Nobody is listening to our phone calls?

 

When President Obama was confronted with the revelations of NSA telephone and Internet spying exposed by Edward Snowden, he resorted to the sort of predictable statements we have heard from other officials: that secret government surveillance is keeping us safe by thwarting terrorist plots; that exposing it to the US public helps our enemies; that it is only a very modest encroachment on our privacy; that we need to have a “balance” between liberty and security; and besides, the surveillance is only done with court-issued warrants, and thoroughly overseen by Congress.

In other words, all this concern and outrage around the Snowden leaks is a lot of “hype” that is blown out of proportion and nothing we need to worry ourselves about. Go back about your lives. There’s nothing to see here.

Those who want to be reassured may have felt some comfort, but most of what Obama said is demonstrably false. One of his biggest misstatements (shall we use the word lie?) is that “nobody is listening to your telephone calls.”

We know from our investigating, and from firsthand accounts by NSA insiders, that the government has been recording and storing the phone calls of more than 500,000 people, many of whom are American citizens with little, if any, probable cause to suspect they are connected with terrorism. By hiding the fact that mass recording of our phone calls is taking place, Obama can still publicly say that “nobody is listening.” But even that claim is false.

William Binney was a top official at the NSA who developed much of their foreign surveillance network until he resigned in protest over the Bush administration’s illegal domestic surveillance in 2001. He is one of the whistleblowers who appears in Seizing Power.

http://youtu.be/vBgLQeBaTHA

In a recent interview with The Daily Caller, Binney said “There are about three billion phone calls made within the USA every day, and then around the world there are something like ten billion a day. But while they may not record anywhere near all of that, what they do is take their target list, which is somewhere on the order of 500,000 to a million people. They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that’s what they record.” NSA typically uses the two degrees of separation or “two hops” method, where whomever a targeted person corresponds with is also recorded, and every person corresponding with those people is recorded as well. From there, they analyze the “metadata” to decide which of the recorded calls to listen to and transcribe.

The main obstacle preventing the NSA from recording and storing every single phone call in the US is the shortage of digital storage capacity. To deal with this “problem” the NSA has a major effort underway to vastly expand their storage capability at a number of data centers, including a huge new facility under construction in Bluffdale, Utah that will be able to store unheard-of amounts of captured data. This is designed to serve as the “cloud” for intelligence and law enforcement personnel to instantly access the phone and Internet activity of every American.

It is probably not an exaggeration to say they will not stop until there is no longer any form of human privacy anywhere in the world.

-David Kasper

The Fallacy of ‘Balance’ between Liberty and Security

 

When government officials and media pundits attempt to justify warrantless spying and other abuses, they resort to common arguments that we hear repeatedly, such as claiming that numerous terrorist plots are being disrupted as a result. Proof of these assertions is seldom provided because, they say, it is too secret for us to know. We’re supposed to just believe them because they say so.

Another method is to play down the abuses, portraying them as just minor intrusions, and nothing we need to worry about. When confronted with the Edward Snowden leaks showing the NSA’s massive surveillance of innocent Americans’ phone records and emails, President Obama resorted to this canard, saying that the enormous NSA seizures amount to only “modest encroachments.”

Then Obama went to a theme that we are hearing more frequently in the public discourse: that there is some kind of trade-off between liberty and security, and that we need to find the right “balance” between the two. In Obama’s opinion, NSA’s warrantless surveillance of every American “strikes the right balance.”

This is a convenient construct that requires you to accept the idea that our Constitutional rights have to be curtailed because we live in such a dangerous world, and that we need to give up some of them so the government can Keep us Safe.

If you can be fooled into acknowledging this fallacious premise, you are on a slippery slope, which is exactly where they want you. The first step to losing your rights is to accept that they are not absolute. From there, it is just a matter of how much and how fast you can lose them.

The whole reason the Bill of Rights was enacted was to enshrine certain rights into the Constitution, in keeping with the principle that they are “unalienable,” meaning that they are not subject to negotiation or compromise; that they are inherent in each individual and cannot be taken away by any ruler, king or government, for any reason.

This is a principle that some would like us to forget or ignore, and the phony “balance” debate is helping to serve that purpose.

-David Kasper