EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails

[GURPS]

EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails


Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

He was speaking on this reporter’s Sunday radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.

Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI’s ability to access various secretive databases “to track down known and suspected terrorists.”

Stated Binney: “Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails.”

 

[Larry Gude]

One day, maybe before it's too late, we'll demand to know what we're consenting to and honor whistle blowers for the true patriots they are.

 

[This_person]

One day, maybe before it's too late, we'll demand to know what we're consenting to and honor whistle blowers for the true patriots they are.

See, with only a small amount of information I can personally say a whistleblower like this is valuable because they do not challenge the safety of the country, like Snowden.

Big difference.

 

[Larry Gude]

See, with only a small amount of information I can personally say a whistleblower like this is valuable because they do not challenge the safety of the country, like Snowden.

Big difference.

Think about that. Your argument is that we, the people, knowing what we're consenting to is harming the ...our country.

 

[This_person]

Think about that. Your argument is that we, the people, knowing what we're consenting to is harming the ...our country.

Nope, not my argument at all.

My argument is that releasing classified information to the world provides smart people a way to know how we gather information, what information we have (and, therefore, a good guess what we DON'T have), and how we use that information is likely a detriment to our safety.

Do you need to know the limitations of our fighter jets? Do you need to know the maximum speed and depth of our submarines? Do you need to know who we have infiltrated into the Kremlin, working as a spy for us? Nope, you don't. But, you can certainly get information like this from your friendly neighborhood traitor - people like Snowden.

Some information is good to be classified. Some may be over classified. Releasing it all is a bad thing, not a good thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope, not my argument at all.

My argument is that releasing classified information to the world provides smart people a way to know how we gather information, what information we have (and, therefore, a good guess what we DON'T have), and how we use that information is likely a detriment to our safety.

Do you need to know the limitations of our fighter jets? Do you need to know the maximum speed and depth of our submarines? Do you need to know who we have infiltrated into the Kremlin, working as a spy for us? Nope, you don't. But, you can certainly get information like this from your friendly neighborhood traitor - people like Snowden.

Some information is good to be classified. Some may be over classified. Releasing it all is a bad thing, not a good thing.

If the level of classification in the, our, gummint is 100%, our starting point, how much of it do you think the typical citizen, given a presidential level briefing, with experts, not folks there to simply protect the classifications, how much do you think they, you, I, would deem proper? 99%? 75%? Half? My entire argument starts with pat Moynihans book, Secrecy, a reasonable understanding of human nature and power and I arrive at being of the opinion that, at the very least, 8 out of 10 times, our employees classify, or over classify, information. At the very least. What this means is that we, the people, are not being told anywhere near what we need to know for OUR government to represent us properly nor for us to give anything remotely resembling informed consent. There's not a single issue this does not impact from national security to the economy to foreign policy to even simple stuff like campaign finance.

The argument is that the over classification, the excessive secret keeping, is not only NOT good for the nation but actually harms us. I think it is easy to see, daily, how this is used, not FOR us, but against us.

 

[This_person]

If the level of classification in the, our, gummint is 100%, our starting point, how much of it do you think the typical citizen, given a presidential level briefing, with experts, not folks there to simply protect the classifications, how much do you think they, you, I, would deem proper? 99%? 75%? Half? My entire argument starts with pat Moynihans book, Secrecy, a reasonable understanding of human nature and power and I arrive at being of the opinion that, at the very least, 8 out of 10 times, our employees classify, or over classify, information. At the very least. What this means is that we, the people, are not being told anywhere near what we need to know for OUR government to represent us properly nor for us to give anything remotely resembling informed consent. There's not a single issue this does not impact from national security to the economy to foreign policy to even simple stuff like campaign finance.

The argument is that the over classification, the excessive secret keeping, is not only NOT good for the nation but actually harms us. I think it is easy to see, daily, how this is used, not FOR us, but against us.

If they're classifying improperly, or intentionally keeping information we have good reason to know away from us (like crime and corruption), whistleblowers should help the pubic.

Whistleblowers who don't know the whole story, who simply have a different opinion, etc., and think releasing wholesale information to the world are more harmful than helpful. Whistleblowers who go to Congress, who go to the court system, who go to the media and expose that - in their opinion - something is wrong, but don't release the classified information, are heroes.

 

[Larry Gude]

If they're classifying improperly, or intentionally keeping information we have good reason to know away from us (like crime and corruption), whistleblowers should help the pubic.

Whistleblowers who don't know the whole story, who simply have a different opinion, etc., and think releasing wholesale information to the world are more harmful than helpful. Whistleblowers who go to Congress, who go to the court system, who go to the media and expose that - in their opinion - something is wrong, but don't release the classified information, are heroes.

Do you see the burden you're putting on the shepherd? Whistleblowers should help here and then you say they don't know the whole story. Anyone who goes through channels knows it is a threat to their career or, at the very least, the channel by which it gets buried. That's simply how bureaucracy works. Nothing makes power heel except for force and, in this case, it's the force of public opinion, a public kept WY too much in the dark to give consent.

Again, what percent would you put on it?

 

[This_person]

Do you see the burden you're putting on the shepherd? Whistleblowers should help here and then you say they don't know the whole story. Anyone who goes through channels knows it is a threat to their career or, at the very least, the channel by which it gets buried. That's simply how bureaucracy works. Nothing makes power heel except for force and, in this case, it's the force of public opinion, a public kept WY too much in the dark to give consent.

Again, what percent would you put on it?

I'm sorry, what percent would I put on what?

I have no argument with you that we're in the dark about a lot - probably too much. I have no argument with you that we over classify. My point is how to go about blowing the whistle. One does NOT risk national security to save national security. One does not throw the baby out with the bath water. One does not give up freedom for security. We agree on these things.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm sorry, what percent would I put on what?

I have no argument with you that we're in the dark about a lot - probably too much. I have no argument with you that we over classify. My point is how to go about blowing the whistle. One does NOT risk national security to save national security. One does not throw the baby out with the bath water. One does not give up freedom for security. We agree on these things.

Yeah, when the baby is diseased and is killing everyone in the home, you do throw it out. Secrecy has taken our freedom and liberty, step by step. That's my argument; it does not work in the national interest nor promote our general welfare. More to the point, we keep giving it up because we buy into the little we are allowed to know. If we knew the truth, we'd perhaps be a little, a lot, more skeptical of the power we've allowed OUR employees to have over us.

 

[This_person]

Yeah, when the baby is diseased and is killing everyone in the home, you do throw it out. Secrecy has taken our freedom and liberty, step by step. That's my argument; it does not work in the national interest nor promote our general welfare. More to the point, we keep giving it up because we buy into the little we are allowed to know. If we knew the truth, we'd perhaps be a little, a lot, more skeptical of the power we've allowed OUR employees to have over us.

If one is not a doctor, one does not always know if the baby is diseased.

What I mean is, a blanket dissemination of national security documents is likely, even if your percentage is 99%, to give out information that should be held classified from release. That's counter-productive. If we have a mole in the Whereisthatstan consulate in Moscow that is giving us information, and we reveal that in some innocuous way through such a data dump of information, that's bad for us (not good). If we have a secret listening post in the Really Big Green Forest in Germany, and the only way we could have gotten Piece A of information is by having such a listening post, and no one knew we had it until they saw we had some little Piece A of information, then the whole thing is shot.

If there's a secret deal to give stuff away to Russia in order to have them remove their missiles from Cuba, we really should know. If the hot new secretary in the Visa office of the Italian consulate is actually a spy, we have no need to know. If we think the secretary is killing Americans for kicks on a Saturday, but she has diplomatic immunity and won't be kicked out of the country because she's dating a Senator, THAT we need to know.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Don't reveal everything, or anything actually classified. Reveal what is necessary to reveal about the secrecy and how it's wrong, without revealing the secrets yourself.

 

[stgislander]

If one is not a doctor, one does not always know if the baby is diseased.

What I mean is, a blanket dissemination of national security documents is likely, even if your percentage is 99%, to give out information that should be held classified from release. That's counter-productive. If we have a mole in the Whereisthatstan consulate in Moscow that is giving us information, and we reveal that in some innocuous way through such a data dump of information, that's bad for us (not good). If we have a secret listening post in the Really Big Green Forest in Germany, and the only way we could have gotten Piece A of information is by having such a listening post, and no one knew we had it until they saw we had some little Piece A of information, then the whole thing is shot.

If there's a secret deal to give stuff away to Russia in order to have them remove their missiles from Cuba, we really should know. If the hot new secretary in the Visa office of the Italian consulate is actually a spy, we have no need to know. If we think the secretary is killing Americans for kicks on a Saturday, but she has diplomatic immunity and won't be kicked out of the country because she's dating a Senator, THAT we need to know.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Don't reveal everything, or anything actually classified. Reveal what is necessary to reveal about the secrecy and how it's wrong, without revealing the secrets yourself.

So where does releasing to the public that the NSA is collecting vast amounts of data on American citizens fall within your definition?

 

[This_person]

So where does releasing to the public that the NSA is collecting vast amounts of data on American citizens fall within your definition?

As I've said, "that they are" is heroic. What they've collected (specific information on specific people) is traitorous.