Re: Fwd: "Stand Your Ground" Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill? | Cato Institute: Policy Forum

"Stand Your Ground" Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill?
---
Self-Defense

On Apr 23, 7:00 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Stand Your Ground" Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill?
>
> *POLICY FORUM
> Monday, April 23, 2012
> 4:00 PM (Reception To Follow)*
>
> Featuring *Clayton E. Cramer*, Historian, Co-author, Cato study, *Tough
> Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens*; *Massad Ayoob*,
> Firearms Trainer, author of *In the Gravest Extreme*; *Steven Jansen*, Vice
> President, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; moderated by *Tim Lynch*,
> Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
>
> The Cato Institute
> 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> [image: Add event to Google
> Calendar]<http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&text=>[image:
> Add event to Microsoft Outlook
> Calendar]<http://www.cato.org/events/icalendar/cato-event.ics?eventid=9141>[image:
> Add event to iCal]<http://www.cato.org/events/icalendar/cato-event.ics?eventid=9141>[image:
> Add event to Yahoo
> Calendar]<http://calendar.yahoo.com/?v=60&view=d&type=20&title=>
>
> If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this event live online atwww.cato.org/liveand join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag
> #CatoEvents <https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23catoevents>. Also follow
> @CatoEvents <https://twitter.com/#!/catoevents> on Twitter to get future
> event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.
>
> Since the tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Florida's Stand Your
> Ground law has come under intense scrutiny. Florida governor Rick Scott is
> presently forming a task force to reexamine that state's law. Critics argue
> that such laws have led to shootouts over petty disputes and have hampered
> police investigations with a sweeping grant of legal immunity. Supporters
> of the Stand Your Ground law say it does not apply to the Martin case and
> that such laws merely protect those who use a firearm in self-defense from
> prosecution and financially ruinous litigation. Join us for a discussion of
> what these laws actually cover and what has happened in the 24 states that
> have enacted them since 2005.
>
> http://shar.es/rFsqc
>
> Sent using ShareThis
>
> Sent from my iPad

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The GOP Establishment Gloats...

The GOP Establishment Gloats...
posted by Christopher Manion on April 21, 2012 05:23 PM

... because it has screwed the Tea Party and the Ron Paul brigades. Their gaudy hubris will, of course, drive millions away from their chosen loser Romney. But hubris is incurable, say the classicists.

These fops would much rather strut on the stage in a ruined country than to be relegated to the cheap seats in a land celebrating freedom, peace, and prosperity. Well, as the Good Book says, they have their reward.

xxx

GOP elite holds off the tea partiers
By: James Hohmann
April 21, 2012 06:37 PM EDT

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. ­ The Republican Party establishment has withstood the tea-party revolution.

The tricorne-hat wearing, Gadsden-flag waving insurgents were nowhere near the Republican National Committee's annual meeting of state chairman, which wrapped up at a posh resort here Saturday afternoon.

Instead, veteran party leaders ­ who wore business suits even in the 100-degree heat ­ reigned supreme.

The 2012 meeting of the Republican national command shows just how little has actually changed in the Grand Old Party since the tea-party movement helped Republicans capture the U.S. House majority two years ago and announced that they were a powerful force in American politics.

While tea-party activists have won county chairmanships and seats on state central committees, few (if any) activists have clinched slots on the Republican Party's 168-member governing committee. That's not to say that tea-partiers have disappeared or that they won't get their moment in the sun ­ but it may take years for them to climb the party ladder the same way as everyone else.

GOP elders sympathize with the movement's ideas and want to channel whatever energy the decentralized groups offer for November. But when asked about the tea-party's influence in interviews here, the movement was always spoken of in the third person and as one constituency in the larger Republican coalition, sort of like defense hawks or fiscal conservatives.

Many Republicans here said that tea-party activists now understand that things will run more smoothly if those with experience are in charge rather than those who put a premium on ideology over process.

"The important thing for any group in the party to understand…is that you need experience to govern," said New Hampshire Republican Chairman Wayne MacDonald. "Everybody has to start somewhere. It's just important they learn the mechanics of how the party operates…It doesn't mean new ideas aren't welcome."

MacDonald, who has been active in his state's politics for 36 years, became state chairman last September after the resignation of tea- party activist Jack Kimball, who drew lots of national attention when he won an upset victory as a political newcomer against the insider-backed candidate.

Kimball resigned just before a meeting in which the state executive committee would have removed him. The party lost special elections and struggled with fundraising under his watch. Many were offended that he signed a petition to Libertarian candidate on the 2012 ballot.

GOP veterans hold out Kimball as the cautionary tale.

"He was over his head, inexperienced and not qualified for the leadership role in an organization in which he never had participated," said Phyllis Woods, New Hampshire's outgoing national committeewoman. "It broke my heart. I knew when he was elected, he would need to network with a lot of people and get a lot of input. But egos get in the way, and it was just too steep a learning curve for him too soon."

"He was very well-intentioned…right on the issues…but lacking any historical perspective for the party, lacking the organizational skills, lacking the knowledge of the mechanics of the party," she added. "In other words, you can have the message. You have to have the network. You have to have the facility to get out the message."

Kimball did not return a call for comment.

Texas Republican committeeman Bill Crocker says the tea party has joined forces with the party in his state, but that the newbies are still figuring out how the game is really played.

"They are good people. Their values are straight on. Some of them are inexperienced, and there's a learning curve that they're going through, and they're not liking some of that," he said. "But…it's really beneficial to both parties – to them and the establishment Republicans that have been there for a while."

"We've all been through it. We just got there before they did," Crocker added. "It's just learning that everybody who is in government is not evil, that we've got some really good people in government. Let's don't burn the barn down to get rid of the rats. Number two, there's a way to get things done and a way where you can work hard and not get anything done."

But at times at the meeting here in Phoenix, the tea party was talked about as altogether distinct from the Republican Party.

"They have their own groups, and they're independent," said Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Rob Gleason. "We've always welcomed their support and welcomed them to our functions."

South Carolina committeeman Glenn McCall said he believes tea-party elements will unite with Republicans to defeat President Barack Obama. But he stressed the two movements were not one and the same.

"It's been our goal not to co-opt the tea-party movement," he said. "We're happy that they support Republican candidates."

Ohio Republican Chair Bob Bennett said he considers the tea party to be "inside the tent, not outside the tent."

"The tea party is an important group for the Republicans," he said, "but we still need independents."

The tea party movement's influence has waned everywhere since its apex in 2010. Most visibly, the Republican Party is poised to nominate the most pragmatic of the men who ran for president this cycle even though many tea-party groups vocally opposed him during the primary. Indeed, Mitt Romney received a coronation of sorts at a unity lunch here Friday, soaking up standing ovations and basking in blessings from 2008 rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

In fact, libertarian supporters of Ron Paul made more successful inroads into the party organization in 2012. A.J. Spiker, the vice chairman of Ron Paul's Iowa campaign, became state party chairman in February. James Smack, a vocal 2008 Paul supporter Nevada, got elevated from vice chair to acting state chair in February after Amy Tarkanian resigned to help her husband run for Congress. Now he's challenging former Nevada Gov. Bob List for Nevada's committeeman slot at next month's state convention.

No one here thinks that the RNC will stop being a stronghold of the elites. But there are some who claim tea-party ties who are challenging RNC committee members at upcoming conventions who may win.

Michigan national committeeman Saul Anuzis, who has twice run for RNC chair, is being challenged by a term-limited state representative.

"The RNC in general is very conservative, but by definition to many, establishment. That in itself makes it impossible to be a Tea Party person," Anuzis said in an email.

"It's not a philosophical battle as often as it's an anti-establishment battle," he added. "It's not necessarily fair because RNC members like myself have aggressively and consistently reached out to Tea Party folks."

Iowa national committeeman Steve Scheffler, a leading social conservative, says the tea party is having a real impact on the conversation in the Hawkeye State.

"They're pretty independent in Iowa. You'll see a lot of them at our state conventions. But that doesn't mean they're just going to blindly vote the party label," he said. "I'm not a member, per se, but I've gone to a lot of their events and I'm very, very sympathetic and think they're one of the few entities that hold the Republicans' feet to the fire. Quite frankly, a lot of Republicans just plain walked off the reservation."

Colorado Republican Chairman Ryan Call said the tea party is not as well organized as in 2010 but the ideas continue to resonate with the base.

"We're still going to be able to tap into that sentiment," he said.

And no one questions that the tea party has been a net-plus for Republicans.

"It's a symbiotic relationship," said Arkansas Republican Party Chairman Doyle Webb. "The tea party has put a spring in the step of the old lumbering elephant."

Morton Blackwell, the longtime national committeeman representing Virginia, believes it's only a matter of time before tea-party activists end up in the highest echelons of the party. But when they do, he doesn't think they'll be thought of as tea partiers.

At 24, Blackwell was Barry Goldwater's youngest delegate at the Cow Palace for the 1964 Republican National Convention. He says the tea party is the latest wave of energy to enter to the party in the tradition of the Goldwater conservatives or Pat Robertson's evangelicals in the 1980s.

"There's always been, to put it gently, an uneasiness when large numbers of new people come to participate," he said. "In each case, it took some getting used to…[Eventually] people who are part of the new influx are treated as individuals, not as representative of some group of strangers."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75428.html

Thank You for Your Service? No Thanks!

Thank You for Your Service? No Thanks!
by Gary D. Barnett

It would be very difficult for me to think of any term that disgusted me more than those words uttered continuously in the presence of virtually any soldier in the United States: "Thank you for your service."

What service is actually being praised by those conditioned to say these empty words? Why are they thanking and praising nearly every soldier they see?

• Is it because hatred of the U.S. is increasing, and new enemies are being created in the Middle East and all around the rest of the world?
• Is it because thousands and thousands of innocent people are being killed now in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and many more are being threatened?
• Is it because 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 foreigners, mostly innocent civilians, have died just since World War II due to U.S. interference and war?
• Is it because indefinite detention without due process, torture, assassination, and rendition are now common and accepted practices?
• Is it because suicide rates among American soldiers have increased 80% since the Iraq War began?
• Is it because mental problems now send more military personnel to the hospital than any other cause?
• Is it because destruction and separation of military families is rampant?
• Is it because civil liberties have all but disappeared due to so-called terrorism legislation? (terror legislation would be more accurate)
• Is it because of the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
• Is it because of the massive buildup of killer drones abroad and at home?
• Is it because the huge deficit spending to support multiple aggressive wars is causing economic chaos?
• Is it because of the surging number of double amputees of American soldiers?
• Is it because of increasing energy costs due to the United States unwarranted presence in the Middle East region?
• Is it because the domestic police have now become a brutal militarized force, bent on controlling the entire population?

I could of course go on, but the picture is clear. Those who continue to believe the propaganda about all U.S. wars leading to the protection of freedom, and to our national security, are blinded by ignorance, and consumed by pathetic false patriotism. No U.S. wars have ever served the purpose of freedom; they have only served to destroy it.

Due to these wars of aggression and occupation, our freedoms are virtually non-existent today. We are spied upon, tracked, searched without warrant, sexually assaulted, and radiated. There are now checkpoints in many parts of the country where it is demanded that we "show our papers," and killer spy drones are filling our skies. Government agents and the military are patrolling all U.S. borders, and Blackhawk war helicopters sporting heavily armed soldiers hanging on tethers are flying over our cities.

Because of these wars, the government has gained enormous power, and continues its assault on liberty. A police state environment has taken hold, and if not curbed soon, will lead to Martial Law in the near future. The DHS has purchased enough killing ammunition to murder more than twice the population, and on the say so of one man, Americans can and are being assassinated. Why?

In order for our national security to be defended, we first have to be attacked. That has not happened. In order to protect freedom here at home, all foreign wars must cease, and all the government agencies and "terrorism" legislation created since 9/11 should be abolished immediately! Every U.S. base on foreign soil should be closed, and every troop stationed in another country should come home and enter the private sector. At least that would be a good start.

There is a reason that the young are sent as cannon fodder to die in the wars of the politicians, bankers, and corporations. They are less likely to challenge the orders they are given; orders meant to be obeyed regardless of the immoral nature of those demands, and regardless of the horrible consequences they will most certainly face. Those who "serve" do not serve the people who falsely praise them; they only serve one master, and that master is the nation state and its benefactors. It is not "we the people."

Thank you for your service? Absolutely not! We can't afford any more of this kind of service!

http://lewrockwell.com/barnett/barnett50.1.html

Fwd: "Stand Your Ground" Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill? | Cato Institute: Policy Forum

"Stand Your Ground" Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill?

POLICY FORUM
Monday, April 23, 2012
4:00 PM (Reception To Follow)

Featuring Clayton E. Cramer, Historian, Co-author, Cato study, Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens; Massad Ayoob, Firearms Trainer, author of In the Gravest Extreme; Steven Jansen, Vice President, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this event live online at www.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #CatoEvents. Also follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.

Since the tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Florida's Stand Your Ground law has come under intense scrutiny. Florida governor Rick Scott is presently forming a task force to reexamine that state's law. Critics argue that such laws have led to shootouts over petty disputes and have hampered police investigations with a sweeping grant of legal immunity. Supporters of the Stand Your Ground law say it does not apply to the Martin case and that such laws merely protect those who use a firearm in self-defense from prosecution and financially ruinous litigation. Join us for a discussion of what these laws actually cover and what has happened in the 24 states that have enacted them since 2005.

http://shar.es/rFsqc

Sent using ShareThis


Sent from my iPad

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The NSA is Lying-U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails

this is a trend regardless of who is in the whitehouse.neocons and democrats two sides of the same coin.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_is_lying_us

 

Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails

 

National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion "transactions" — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States. Binney talks about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and challenges NSA Director Keith Alexander's assertion that the NSA is not intercepting information about U.S. citizens. This interview is part of a 4-part special. Click here to see segment 1, 2, and 4. [includes rush transcript]

FILED UNDER  Domestic Spying, Domestic Surveillance, Wiretapping, Wikileaks, Hacking

GUESTS:

William Binney, served in the NSA for over 30 years, including a time as director of the NSA's World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Since retiring from the NSA in 2001, he has warned that the NSA's data-mining program has become so vast that it could "create an Orwellian state."

Jacob Appelbaum, a computer security researcher who has volunteered with WikiLeaks. He is a developer and advocate for the Tor Project, a network enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the internet.

Laura Poitras, an award-winning documentary filmmaker and producer. She is working on the third part of a trilogy of films about America post-9/11. The first film was My Country, My Country," and the second was The Oath.

Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I wanted to ask William Binney about this issue. When it comes to snail mail, the old postal system, it's very tough for the government to intercept mail, except in times of war, particular situations. When it comes to phone conversations, land phone conversations, you need a warrant to be able to intercept phone conversations. But what about email, and what about the communication now that is really the dominant form that not only Americans, but many people around the world communicate? What are the restrictions on the government in terms of email?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, after some of the laws they passed, like the PATRIOTAct and their secret interpretation of Section 215, which is—my view, of course, is same as Tom Drake's, is that that gives them license to take all the commercially held data about us, which is exceedingly dangerous, because if you take that and put it into forms of graphing, which is building relationships or social networks for everybody, and then you watch it over time, you can build up knowledge about everyone in the country. And having that knowledge then allows them the ability to concoct all kinds of charges, if they want to target you. Like in my case, they fabricated several charges and attempted to indict us on them. Fortunately, we were able to produce evidence that would make them look very silly in court, so they didn't do it. In fact, it was—I was basically assembling evidence of malicious prosecution, which was a countercharge to them. So...

AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe all emails, the government has copies of, in the United States?

WILLIAM BINNEY: I would think—I believe they have most of them, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And you're speaking from a position where you would know, considering your position in the National Security Agency.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. All they would have to do is put various Narus devices at various points along the network, at choke points or convergent points, where the network converges, and they could basically take down and have copies of most everything on the network.

AMY GOODMAN: Jacob, your email?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Well, I selectively chose to use certain public services, like Sonic.net and Gmail, and I specifically did that so as to serve as a warning to other people. I didn't use it for anything interesting, never once emailed Julian, for example, from those accounts. But the U.S. government again asserted in those cases, according to the Wall Street Journal, which is one way to find out about what's going on with you—they asserted that they have the right to all that metadata. And it is possible—on Monday, I had a little interaction with the FBI, where they sort of hinted that maybe there might be a national security letter for one of my email accounts, which is also hosted by Google, specifically because I want to serve as a canary in a coal mine for other people.

AMY GOODMAN: A national security letter—it's believed the government has given out hundreds of thousands of those.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: I have also written about NSLs. But if you get one, you are not allowed to talk about it, on pain of something like up to five years in prison, even to mention that you were handed a national security letter that said turn something over.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah. That was the case of Nick Merrill, for example, who's a brave American, who essentially fought and won the NSL that was handed down to him.

AMY GOODMAN: And the librarians of Connecticut—

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —who were taking on the USA PATRIOT Act and didn't want to give information over about patrons in the library that the FBI wanted to get information on.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Right, absolutely. So, an NSL, what's specifically scary about it is that all that is required is for an FBI agent to assert that they need one, and that's it. And you don't have a chance to have judicial review, because you aren't the one served. Your service provider will be served. And they can't tell you, so you don't get your day in court.

AMY GOODMAN: Laura, can you set up this clip that we have?

LAURA POITRAS: Yes, actually, this is what Jake was alluding to. On Monday, there was a panel at the Open Society Institute. And Jake—and there was a deputy general counsel of the FBI who was present, and Jake had the opportunity to question her about national security letters.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Are you including national security letters in your comment about believing that there is judicial oversight with the FBI's actions?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: National security letters and administrative subpoenas have the ability to have judicial oversight, yes.

JACOB APPELBAUM: How many of those actually do have judicial oversight, in percentage?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: What do you mean by that? How many have—

JACOB APPELBAUM: I mean, every time you get a national security letter, you have to go to a judge? Or—

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: No, as you well know, national security letters, just like administrative subpoenas, you don't have to go to a judge. The statute does allow for the person on whom those are served to seek judicial review. And people have done so.

JACOB APPELBAUM: And in the case of the third parties, such as, say, the 2703(d) orders that were served on my — according to theWall Street Journal — my Gmail account, my Twitter account, and my internet service provider account, the third parties were prohibited from telling me about it, so how am I supposed to go to a judge, if the third party is gagged from telling me that I'm targeted by you?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: There are times when we have to have those things in place. So, at some point, obviously, you became aware. So at some point, the person does become aware. But yes, the statute does allow us to do that. The statute allows us.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Jacob, explain who she was again.

JACOB APPELBAUM: So, my understanding is that she's the deputy general counsel of the FBI.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of what she has just said?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Essentially, what she says is, "We are just and righteous because you get judicial review. But there are some cases where you don't, and we are still just and righteous. And you should trust us, because COINTELPROwill never happen again." That's what I heard from that. And, in fact, later, someone asked about COINTELPRO and said, "How can we" —

AMY GOODMAN: The counterintelligence program that targeted so many dissidents in the 1970s.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah. Tried to get Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself, for example. The FBI wrote him a letter and encouraged him to commit suicide. So for her to suggest that it is just and right and that we should always trust them sort of overlooks the historical problems with doing exactly that for any people in a position of power, with no judicial oversight.

JUAN GONZALEZ: William Binney, what about the companies that are approached by the government to participate or facilitate the surveillance? Your sense of the degree of opposition that they're mounting, if at all? And also, has there been any kind of qualitative change since the Obama administration came in versus what the Bush administration was practicing?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, first of all, I don't think any of them opposed it in any way. I mean, they were approached to saying, "You'll be patriotic if you support us." So I think they saluted and said, "Yes, sir," and supported them, because they were told it was legal, too. And then, of course, they had to be given retroactive immunity for the crimes they were committing. So—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Approved by President Obama.

WILLIAM BINNEY: And President Bush, yeah. It started with Bush, yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the differences in the administrations?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Actually, I think the surveillance has increased. In fact, I would suggest that they've assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens.

AMY GOODMAN: How many?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Twenty trillion.

AMY GOODMAN: And you're saying that this surveillance has increased? Not only the—

WILLIAM BINNEY: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —targeting of whistleblowers, like your colleagues, like people like Tom Drake, who are actually indicted under the Obama administration—

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —more times—the number of people who have been indicted are more than all presidents combined in the past.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. And I think it's to silence what's going on. But the point is, the data that's being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Binney, talk about Bluffdale, Utah. What is being built there?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, a very large storage device, basically, for remote interrogation and remote processing. That's the way I view that. Because there's not enough people there to actually work the data there, so it's being worked somewhere else.

AMY GOODMAN: Where do you get the number 20 trillion?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Just by the numbers of telecoms, it appears to me, from the questions that CNET posed to them in 2006, and they published the names and how—what the responses were. I looked at that and said that anybody that equivocated was participating, and then estimated from that the numbers of transactions. That, by the way, estimate only was involving phone calls and emails. It didn't involve any queries on the net or any assembles—other—any financial transactions or credit card stuff, if they're assembling that. I do not know that, OK.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the original—the original allegations that you made, in terms of the crimes being committed under the Bush administration in terms of the rights of American citizens, could you detail those?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I made that—I reported the crime when I was raided in 2007. And it was that Bush and Cheney and Hayden and Tenet conspired to subvert the Constitution and violate various laws of the—that exist in the statute at the time, and here's how they did it. And I was reporting this to the FBI on my back porch during the raid. And I went through Stellar Wind and told them what it did and what the information it was using and how they were spying on—or assembling data to be able to spy on any American.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to a clip of Congress Member Hank Johnson—he's the Georgia Democrat—questioning National Security Administration director, General Keith Alexander, last month, asking him whether the NSA spies on U.S. citizens.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens' emails?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Does the NSA intercept Americans' cell phone conversations?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Google searches?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Text messages?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Amazon.com orders?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Bank records?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: What judicial consent is required for NSA to intercept communications and information involving American citizens?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: Within the United States, that would be theFBI lead. If it was a foreign actor in the United States, the FBI would still have the lead and could work that with NSA or other intelligence agencies, as authorized. But to conduct that kind of collection in the United States, it would have to go through a court order, and the court would have to authorize it. We are not authorized to do it, nor do we do it.

AMY GOODMAN: That was General Keith Alexander, the NSA director, being questioned by Democratic Congress Member Hank Johnson. Bill Binney, he's the head of your agency, of the NSA. Explain what he's saying—what he's not saying, as well.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I think it's—part of it is a term, how you use the term "intercept," as to whether or not what they're saying is, "We aren't actually looking at it, but we have it," you know, or whether or not they're actually collecting it and storing it somewhere.

JUAN GONZALEZ: So the mistake of the congressman was not to ask, "Are you collecting information?"

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, he also said things like, "We don't collect" — or, "We don't collect against U.S. citizens unless we have a warrant." And then, at the same time, he said that we don't—at the same interview, he said, "We don't have the capability to collect inside this country." Well, those are kind of contradictory.

AMY GOODMAN: Is he lying? Is General Keith Alexander lying?

WILLIAM BINNEY: I wouldn't—you know, the point is how you split the words. I wouldn't say "lying." It's a kind of avoiding the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Jacob Appelbaum, how does this relate to you? And how powerful is General Keith Alexander?

JACOB APPELBAUM: I was saying to Bill that I think he's probably the most powerful person in the world, in the sense that—

AMY GOODMAN: More powerful than President Obama?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Well, sure. I mean, if he controls the information that arrives on Obama's desk, and Obama makes decisions based on the things on his desk, what decisions can he make, if—except the decisions presented to him by the people he trusts? And when the people he trusts are the military, the military makes the decisions, then the civilian government is not actually in power.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Binney, you're nodding your head.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Yes. I mean, well, for example, their responsibility is to interpret what they have and report up echelon. So, I mean, that's the responsibility of all the intelligence agencies. So, they basically filter the information to what they believe is important, which is what they should do, because, you know, they're occupying—it takes time for leaders to review material to make decisions. So they have to boil it down as best they can. So it's a function of their processing, but it is important that they do it correctly to make sure the information that gets there is correct and complete as it can.

AMY GOODMAN: Is General Alexander more powerful than President Obama?

WILLIAM BINNEY: In the sense of making—of presenting information for decision making, sure.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Laura, the impact on journalists, who have to go through what you go—you've gone through the last few years, just to be able to report what's going on with our government? The chilling effect that this has on—maybe not on you, but on many other journalists?

LAURA POITRAS: Sure. I mean, I feel like I can't talk about the work that I do in my home, in my place of work, on my telephone, and sometimes in my country. So the chilling effect is huge. It's enormous.

AMY GOODMAN: You keep your computers and telephones away from conversations you're having in a room?

LAURA POITRAS: Yeah. When we had a meeting with you, remember, we told you—we kicked all your cell phones and all your computers out of the room.

AMY GOODMAN: You un—the wired phone, you unwired.

LAURA POITRAS: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: My cell phone, you didn't allow me to have it in the room. And you made sure there were no computers in the room.

LAURA POITRAS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

LAURA POITRAS: Because we wanted—well, we wanted to talk about—because we were bringing—we were bringing William to New York. And—

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, but we're going to go online right now at democracynow.org. We're going to continue this conversation with Bill Binney of the NSA, formerly with NSA; Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum.

This interview is part of a 4-part special. Click here to see segment 1, 2, and 4

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.