4 ms·

Here is the video clip from General Alexander's congressional testimony three days ago, where he stated this was not happening: http://youtu.be/ZmBAxEWxDFs?t=1

by moxie 13y ago

Here is the video clip from General Alexander's congressional testimony three days ago, where he stated this was not happening: http://youtu.be/ZmBAxEWxDFs?t=1h29m50s http://youtu.be/ZmBAxEWxDFs?t=1h29m50s It's not clear to me whether they were sworn in for this hearing or not, but if this new report is true, then this seems to be at least the second documented case of an exposed lie about the scope of surveillance during congressional testimony. The first, of course, being Clapper's "not wittingly:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ss2_0emOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ss2_0emOY

cpleppert 13y ago
He might be interpreting the claim as being that Snowden could do that, which is, of course, false.
- gojomo 13y ago
  I don't follow your "of course, false". Maybe Snowden really could obtain wiretaps of federal judges and the President, either because he was given the discretionary permission to do so in the course of an investigation, or they were available to him with a little trivial privilege-escalation. Alexander might have meant Snowden wasn't supposed to have that capability. Or that Snowden had it but wasn't supposed to use it that way, so he "couldn't" do it under the law (but could in practice). It's hard to say; the testimony has often used obfuscatory weasel words and conveniently shifting definitions, and the avuncular grandparents in the Senate aren't exactly vigorous in their cross-examination.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    What everyone misses about the comment on wiretapping the President is "if I had a personal email." There is no reason, none, that the President's Yahoo Mail account would be different from anyone else's Yahoo Mail account, so it's reasonable that that could be tapped without special permission. His statement did not preclude controls on tapping White House or other .gov emails.

by moxie 13y ago

cpleppert 13y ago

He might be interpreting the claim as being that Snowden could do that, which is, of course, false.

gojomo 13y ago
I don't follow your "of course, false". Maybe Snowden really could obtain wiretaps of federal judges and the President, either because he was given the discretionary permission to do so in the course of an investigation, or they were available to him with a little trivial privilege-escalation. Alexander might have meant Snowden wasn't supposed to have that capability. Or that Snowden had it but wasn't supposed to use it that way, so he "couldn't" do it under the law (but could in practice). It's hard to say; the testimony has often used obfuscatory weasel words and conveniently shifting definitions, and the avuncular grandparents in the Senate aren't exactly vigorous in their cross-examination.
- superuser2 13y ago
  What everyone misses about the comment on wiretapping the President is "if I had a personal email." There is no reason, none, that the President's Yahoo Mail account would be different from anyone else's Yahoo Mail account, so it's reasonable that that could be tapped without special permission. His statement did not preclude controls on tapping White House or other .gov emails.