The Forbidden
Writing for oblivion.
"He told me, in Moscow: "It's not that I'm some special messenger blessed by God or anyone else to take on this role. It's just that, if you look around the table and nobody else is doing it, year after year, you realize, if you don't do it, it's not going to happen."
--Barton GellmanHow the Treason Meme Began
In the debate on Snowden as either patriot or traitor, Binney opts for the former: “I would put him as a patriot, yes. He is trying to stand up for the Constitution. That’s what we all did and our government attacked us for doing that. So, in my view, the government is the criminal here.”
" ... He talked about Bill Binney. He talked about Tom Drake. He talked about some of the others. He said that when you try to work the system from the inside, first of all, the system will reach out and crush you. ...
The other lesson he learned from Drake and Binney is that you can be discredited or your claims deflected, or people won't know whether to believe you if you don't have proof. And it was because of that that he decided it had to be documents, and it had to be a lot of documents, because one document would be one story. ...
It had to be proof. It had to be documents, and it had to be a lot of documents, because one document is one story. Maybe it goes on for a few days, and people stop. And in the context that will be described by the U.S. government, it will be, "Well, that's just this thing over here." He wanted to show the breadth and depth of the surveillance state that had grown up with(out) our knowledge. And to do that, there had to be a lot of material, a lot of perspectives on it, and a lot of stories over time."
"He knew he would have to escape the United States to have any chance of getting explosive documentation detailing how vast the surveillance state had grown, had gone, both domestically as well as overseas, just bulk-copy access to millions and millions of records of citizens, both U.S. citizens as well as other citizens, completely innocent, had nothing to do with any kind of investigation, right -- this pathological condition now that is now fully institutionalized."
"But one of the jobs he had was to train U.S. intelligence personnel on how to operate in what's called a high-threat digital environment, how to go to a place where you know you're under surveillance by somebody good, and threat model is China, and how to use, even on untrusted hardware, even on a machine that might have been compromised by the bad guys, how to communicate securely. That's the kind of thing he was good at. And sometimes he was asked to train other intelligence personnel on how to do that."
"Right. In the early days, people talked about him as some kind of a low-level technician. He couldn't possibly have access to all this stuff. You have to realize that, in the CIA and the NSA, a lot of times the number of policymakers, people at the top who know about a thing, is very small. But you need a lot more people at the operating level to know, or you can't get done at all.
So in the CIA, Snowden had clearances for human intelligence. In the NSA, he had clearances for many, many compartments, specially protected parts of top-secret information in what's called signals intelligence. That's the electronic surveillance. And he had a third set of powers, which is actually called super user, when you're a system administrator in which you have root-level access to processes that anybody else would be locked out from. And that combination of human and signals intelligence and super user, sys admin power, it's a very potent combination that opened many, many doors to him."
"So I think what has happened is this has trickled down from we initially became a national security state; we are now becoming a police state in which this huge database with everything on everybody is being used for criminal prosecutions. That's a police state. That is our liberties just simply evaporating."
"It is now quite obvious, since the Snowden revelations, that the program grew progressively over time. Initially, I knew that it involved a lot of broad domestic surveillance, bulk collection, domestically. And I knew that it involved emails, landlines, regular house phones, cell phones. I also knew that they had branched out into non-communications data. [ ... ] ... we all know that transportation data, airline data is connected. We know that international banking data is collected; that has been acknowledged. But there have been allusions to other items, too, by people hypothetically, such as credit, medical, banking and so on."
"So much of the spying that we revealed has blatantly nothing to do with terrorism, whether it be spying on oil companies in Brazil, such as Petrobras, or spying on economic summits where governments negotiate economic agreements, or spying on U.S. law firms representing Indonesia in trade talks, or directing the spying system at hundreds of millions or billions of people indiscriminately.
Terrorism is the pretext used to justify the system but is not, in fact, its actual purpose as evidenced by the huge amount of spying they do that have nothing to do with that.
The other aspect to it is, that if you were to have a system that actually was about directed spying, targeted spying aimed at terrorists, you could make the case that the system is about stopping terrorist plots. When you collect billions of emails and telephone calls around the world every day indiscriminately, it actually makes it more difficult to stop terrorist plots because you have such a vast amount of information that it's impossible even to know what it is that you had. What the NSA is doing actually makes detecting terrorist plots harder not easier, on top of destroying people's privacy."
Later during the summer of 2013 Tice alleged that during his employment with the NSA, the agency had a program that targeted the phone and computer conversations, word for word, of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, Admirals and Generals, and that the NSA had wiretapped Barack Obama while he was a Senate candidate, saying he had seen and held papers ordering such actions. Tice claimed the surveillance extended to lawyers and law firms, judges (one of whom, Samuel Alito "is now sitting on the Supreme Court ... two are former FISA court judges"), State Department officials, people "in the executive service that were part of the White House", antiwar groups, US companies and banking and financial firms that do international business, NGOs and humanitarian groups such as the Red Cross, and antiwar civil rights groups. In his opinion, this 'wide-ranging' surveillance could offer intelligence agencies 'unthinkable power to blackmail their opponents'.
"Clearly there's no adequate outlet for whistleblowers who have legitimate, honest complaints to make. I don't think we'd be sitting here today if Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis, Bill Binney, Tom Drake, Diane Roark and Ed Snowden had a good, robust path for whistleblowers to get an honest hearing about things wrong in their home organizations, especially those that violate the basic rights of Americans.When that process is broken, there can be no truth. And there will be no truth, because all of this going after Snowden and going after us tells all other employees: "Don't you ever cross us by telling the truth. We don't want you to." Imagine running your family that way, teaching people to lie, or hold a lie. It's not a secret. This isn't about classified material. This is about corrupt, dishonest, criminal behavior. There's a huge difference."
"So I started asking questions, and I asked a supervisor of mine if she knew what the program was about. She told me that she just assumed that what we were doing was illegal and she didn't want to ask any questions. That really ate away at me and bothered me, because I thought I had gone into law enforcement to enforce the law. I didn't like the fact that I thought, or that a supervisor thought, that we might be doing something illegal."Again, William Binney:
"Well, I couldn't be an accessory to the violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. I couldn't be an accessory to that, or an accessory to other crimes being committed, like exposing all this data to the FBI. It was acquired without a warrant, you know. And this is the kind of data that they would use to arrest people, which they did. So I couldn't be a party to that. That's just a total violation of our justice process."
"They are violating the constitutional rights of everybody by taking in all this data and building the social networks of everybody. It's a violation of the First Amendment."
You have the right to free association. It doesn't say you have the right to free association as long as the NSA knows about it, because collecting all this metadata gives them everybody you're associating with, and how frequently and how often, and the timeline for all that association.
So it's a violation of that one, not counting the collection of content or anything else that's related to that, which is, you know, a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, or use of it to arrest you, which is a violation of your Fifth Amendment rights, not testifying against yourself.
So it was a total violation of the Constitution, not counting the Electronic [Communications] Privacy Act, the [Cyberspace] Electronic Security Act [CESA], all those things, and all the laws covering FCC regulations, covering telecoms. ..."
Drake: "I actually salute him. I will say it right here. I actually salute him, given my experience over many, many years both inside and outside the system. Remember, I saw what he saw. I want to re-emphasize that. What he did was a magnificent act of civil disobedience. He's exposing the inner workings of the surveillance state. And it's in the public interest. It truly is."
Wiebe: "Well, I don't want anyone to think that he had an alternative. No one should (think that). There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered."
"The Snowden data is irrefutable evidence that the government, on a large scale, is breaking our laws under the Constitution of the United States, breaking them unequivocally, and on a large scale. And if you want to think globally, it's doing the same for innocent people all over the world. And it has partners in crime doing the same thing. So we have a rogue bunch of intelligence people who think it's OK to do this. We've got a real problem, because now your privacy of thought and actions as an individual is gone. ..."
"I said to Snowden, before and after I knew his identity, that I was going to do everything in my power as a journalist, in a normal journalistic way, to keep his identity secure, that I was not going to be sharing it, for example, with my editors, and he said: "You're not going to have to worry about that. It won't be long before I announce myself."
I said, "Why would you do that?," and he said he didn't want the story to be about some sneaky leaker. He did not want his co-workers and his family to bear the brunt of one of these come-down-on-everyone investigations, where everyone is a suspect, and everyone's life is disrupted. He wanted to take responsibility.And he told me that he wanted to be actually a model for other whistleblowers, that he wanted to show that you could come out and tell the truth about something you thought was wrong, and you didn't have to hide."