4 ms·

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all t

by falk 13y ago

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

pvnick 13y ago
This seems to have been the plan all along, and it's working brilliantly. As Greenwald said in the recent Majority Report interview [1] we are still "near the beginning of the revelations," so I think we're going to continue catching high officials in the middle of lies. [1] http://majority.fm/2013/07/25/725-glenn-greenwald-the-impact-of-the-nsa-revelations/ http://majority.fm/2013/07/25/725-glenn-greenwald-the-impact...
lukeschlather 13y ago
Please, take the time to read the article. > “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.” They've essentially admitted that Greenwald's information is accurate, they're just claiming that Greenwald is late to the party and they've already dealt with the problem in secret. It's interesting, because if you go back over the testimony I'm very sure that all of the NSA denials will be in the present tense. So it's quite possible that the NSA has not been lying at all, they've just been counting on us to fill in "That has never happened" when all they've said is "we do not [currently] do that."
- manmal 13y ago
  But, "two or three years ago" is a strangely broad phrase to use for something as huge as monitoring emails. Why did they not say "that stopped in the middle of 2011" or something like that?
- malandrew 13y ago
  Snowden left the NSA a few months ago. If the monitoring of emails had truly ceased 2-3 years ago, I would have expected that information to already have been aired since Snowden and the classified material he has is likely to be current enough to corroborate this claim.
- falk 13y ago
  I did read the article. There's a lot more information to be released. Snowden took thousands of documents that he hand selected. Greenwald has said that there are more NSA programs to be exposed.
malandrew 13y ago
As a very smart former lawyer, I have no doubt that he's going to ask every question, knowing full well the answer to the question and that those testifying on behalf of the NSA are going to be left with no choice but to lie either directly or through some sort of doublespeak. They should assume that everything he asks or talks about is backed up by evidence. Only one of two things are likely to happen on Wednesday. He discusses the truth and they admit it or he discusses the truth, they deny it, he provides evidence to the contrary that confirms both the truth and that those at the NSA blatantly lied to Congress. Either way, there is no way this can go down well for those protecting these abuses of Constitutional rights. I'm really looking forward to this hearing.
- junto 13y ago
  Ok, conspiracy theories gone crazy here but here goes... GreEnwald is exposed down there in Brazil. A petty street robbery gone bad, a car accident, or a simple "sudden" heart attack, could all make this into a nothing event. People in this kind of position have habits of "committing suicide" from the "stress": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams I would put money on the act that Gareth Williams worked on, or knew about both Tempora and Prism. "Williams' working life, after graduating with a first in mathematics in 1996 aged 17, was spent in Cheltenham at GCHQ, Britain’s signals intelligence agency. He joined in 2001 after completing a PhD in computer science at Manchester University. His final role in GCHQ had been designing "practical applications for emerging technologies". In 2007, he applied to become a secret agent by transferring to SIS, the UK's human intelligence agency responsible for spies and spy recruitment. He was put through a series of aptitude and skill tests. He failed. He also attended Black Hat 16 the same year, according to an SIS witness, presumably also then staying on to attend Defcon." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inquest/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inqu... Maybe he was Snowden part 1: the failed mission. End conspiracy theory...
  - malandrew 13y ago
bmistree 13y ago
4. No actual consequences for anyone demonstrated to be lying. Until officials are held accountable, why wouldn't they continue lying and denying? It's starting to get to the point where I'm more angry at congress members who should provide oversight, than the lying officials themselves. As a simple example, if I'm an NSA official and contrast how James Clapper experienced absolutely no real consequences for perjuring himself [1], with how Snowden has been treated for rocking the boat, I honestly don't know what decision I would make. [1] http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...

by falk 13y ago

pvnick 13y ago

This seems to have been the plan all along, and it's working brilliantly. As Greenwald said in the recent Majority Report interview [1] we are still "near the beginning of the revelations," so I think we're going to continue catching high officials in the middle of lies. [1] http://majority.fm/2013/07/25/725-glenn-greenwald-the-impact-of-the-nsa-revelations/ http://majority.fm/2013/07/25/725-glenn-greenwald-the-impact...

lukeschlather 13y ago

Please, take the time to read the article. > “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.” They've essentially admitted that Greenwald's information is accurate, they're just claiming that Greenwald is late to the party and they've already dealt with the problem in secret. It's interesting, because if you go back over the testimony I'm very sure that all of the NSA denials will be in the present tense. So it's quite possible that the NSA has not been lying at all, they've just been counting on us to fill in "That has never happened" when all they've said is "we do not [currently] do that."

manmal 13y ago
But, "two or three years ago" is a strangely broad phrase to use for something as huge as monitoring emails. Why did they not say "that stopped in the middle of 2011" or something like that?
malandrew 13y ago
Snowden left the NSA a few months ago. If the monitoring of emails had truly ceased 2-3 years ago, I would have expected that information to already have been aired since Snowden and the classified material he has is likely to be current enough to corroborate this claim.
falk 13y ago
I did read the article. There's a lot more information to be released. Snowden took thousands of documents that he hand selected. Greenwald has said that there are more NSA programs to be exposed.

malandrew 13y ago

As a very smart former lawyer, I have no doubt that he's going to ask every question, knowing full well the answer to the question and that those testifying on behalf of the NSA are going to be left with no choice but to lie either directly or through some sort of doublespeak. They should assume that everything he asks or talks about is backed up by evidence. Only one of two things are likely to happen on Wednesday. He discusses the truth and they admit it or he discusses the truth, they deny it, he provides evidence to the contrary that confirms both the truth and that those at the NSA blatantly lied to Congress. Either way, there is no way this can go down well for those protecting these abuses of Constitutional rights. I'm really looking forward to this hearing.

junto 13y ago
Ok, conspiracy theories gone crazy here but here goes... GreEnwald is exposed down there in Brazil. A petty street robbery gone bad, a car accident, or a simple "sudden" heart attack, could all make this into a nothing event. People in this kind of position have habits of "committing suicide" from the "stress": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams I would put money on the act that Gareth Williams worked on, or knew about both Tempora and Prism. "Williams' working life, after graduating with a first in mathematics in 1996 aged 17, was spent in Cheltenham at GCHQ, Britain’s signals intelligence agency. He joined in 2001 after completing a PhD in computer science at Manchester University. His final role in GCHQ had been designing "practical applications for emerging technologies". In 2007, he applied to become a secret agent by transferring to SIS, the UK's human intelligence agency responsible for spies and spy recruitment. He was put through a series of aptitude and skill tests. He failed. He also attended Black Hat 16 the same year, according to an SIS witness, presumably also then staying on to attend Defcon." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inquest/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/gareth_williams_inqu... Maybe he was Snowden part 1: the failed mission. End conspiracy theory...
- malandrew 13y ago

bmistree 13y ago

4. No actual consequences for anyone demonstrated to be lying. Until officials are held accountable, why wouldn't they continue lying and denying? It's starting to get to the point where I'm more angry at congress members who should provide oversight, than the lying officials themselves. As a simple example, if I'm an NSA official and contrast how James Clapper experienced absolutely no real consequences for perjuring himself [1], with how Snowden has been treated for rocking the boat, I honestly don't know what decision I would make. [1] http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...