vrijdag 9 mei 2014

Edward Snowden and Laura Poitras Take on America’s Runaway Surveillance State...


Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden
(Laura Poitras: AP Images. Edward Snowden: Courtesy, The Guardian)
On April 30, in a ceremony at the National Press Club in Washington, the Nation Institute and the Fertel Foundation awarded their annual Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and filmmaker Laura Poitras. The bestselling author and journalist James Bamford, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the US intelligence community, presented the award to Snowden and Poitras, who were present by live video link. Here are excerpts from their remarks.
James Bamford: I’m very honored to be here to introduce two extraordinary people, Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden.
Many years ago when my first book about the NSA, The Puzzle Palace, was published, the joke was that “NSA” stood for “No Such Agency” or, for those on the inside, “Never Say Anything.” Recently I’ve heard from some of my deep-cover sources up at Fort Meade that the old joke has changed. “NSA,” they say, now stands for “Not Secret Anymore.” Having warned of the dangers of the NSA for the past three decades, I very much prefer the latest definition. And no one is more responsible for that than Edward Snowden and Laura Poitras.
I first met Laura several years ago in London. I had just returned to England after working on the defense team for Thomas Drake, an NSA whistleblower and a previous Ridenhour award winner. Laura told me the extraordinary story of how nearly every time she flew into or out of the United States—dozens and dozens of times—she was pulled aside by Homeland Security, searched, interrogated for hours and often had her electronic equipment seized.
Treated like a suspected terrorist, she was an even greater threat to the Bush and Obama administrations. Instead of a bomb, she carried a video camera and was producing an explosive trilogy of feature-length films documenting the country’s tragic post-9/11 descent into bloody wars, civil liberties abuses and mass surveillance. She had completed the first two—My Country, My Country, a compelling and courageous story about life for Iraqis under US occupation, which was nominated for an Academy Award, and The Oath, a moving account of two Yemeni men caught up in America’s “war on terror,” which won at Sundance. Now, she told me, she wanted to turn her focus to the third film, the one on NSA surveillance.
Then, in January 2013, she received an anonymous message: “I am a senior member of the intelligence community,” it said. “This won’t be a waste of your time.” Sent by Edward Snowden, it would be the understatement of the century.
Years earlier, Ed Snowden enlisted in the Army Reserve as a Special Forces recruit, broke both legs in a training accident, and later joined the CIA and then became a contractor at Dell and Booz Allen for the NSA. Soon the documents crossing his computer screen began to greatly trouble him. Rather than hunting for terrorists, the agency was hunting for virtually everyone, everywhere, all the time, and conducting dragnet surveillance, often with little regard for the law or the Constitution.
The NSA had become a runaway surveillance train. Without an emergency brake on the inside, Ed Snowden hoped to stop it the only way he could, on the outside, and thus passed the evidence to Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald. He knew that without the documents, the agency would simply make every effort to discredit the information, as they tried to do with previous NSA whistleblowers, including Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe and Tom Drake.
While I was in Rio, Glenn showed me a document that indicated just how close that train had come to what Frank Church had warned was “the abyss from which there is no return.” In a memorandum, Gen. Keith Alexander suggested going after not terrorists or criminals but “radicalizers,” including innocent Americans, by searching the Internet for their vulnerabilities, such as visits to porn sites. Then, by secretly leaking this information, the NSA could discredit them in the eyes of their followers. Nearly half a century earlier, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover had the same idea. He used the same tactic against a radical of the day, Martin Luther King Jr., by secretly leaking to the press details of King’s sex life.
As someone who has watched that train heading for the abyss for a long time, I’m very thankful for Ed Snowden’s great courage and Laura Poitras’s great wisdom.
Laura Poitras: Thank you all so much. I’m deeply honored to receive this award by a man who exposed war crimes. I’d like to share this award with my beloved friend and colleague, Glenn Greenwald. Without Glenn’s courage and focus, I would not have been able to do this reporting. Nor would I’ve had as much fun in the past months, or been able to handle the amount of stress that we’ve been placed under. So this is also for Glenn.
I’m especially honored to receive this award with Ed Snowden. One year ago, last April, I received an anonymous e-mail from the source I’d been corresponding with for several months. And he wrote something that sent my heart racing and my head spinning. Until that day, I assumed that the source claiming to have evidence of massive NSA illegal surveillance intended to remain anonymous and that it would be my responsibility to protect his identity and to report on these disclosures.
In his e-mail, he patiently explained that I needed to change my expectations. He told me that I could not protect his identity and that he did not want me to. He said he intended to claim responsibility for his actions and that he would outline his motivations that led him to come forward and the dangers that he saw inside the agency. He simply asked one thing of me, which was to safely return this information to the American public so they could decide the kind of government that they wanted to live under.
Reading this e-mail a year ago today, I never imagined I’d be speaking here in this room. I have spent many years in war zones, and I have not experienced the kind of fear and intimidation that I have during my reporting on the NSA. So it’s wonderful to be here—although I can’t be there in person, given some of the experiences I’ve had with the US government in response to my reporting.
It’s wonderful to see the amount of support and encouragement for the reporting and the international response to the information that Ed has brought forward. At this point, the responsibility lies in the hands of citizens to move forward with this information.
Edward Snowden: I have to agree with Laura about at least one thing, which is that a year ago there was no way I could have imagined that I would end up being honored in this room. When I began this, I never expected to receive the level of support that I did from the public. Having seen what had happened to people who came before—specifically Thomas Drake—it was an intimidating thing, and I realized that the most likely outcome of returning this information to public hands would be that I would spend the rest of my life in prison. I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.
Now, what’s important about this is that I’m not the only one who felt this way. There were people throughout the NSA that I worked with that I had private conversations with—and I’ve had conversations since in other federal agencies—who had the same concerns I did, but they were afraid to take action because they knew what would happen. I can specifically remember a conversation in the wake of James Clapper’s famous lie to Senator Wyden where I asked my co-worker, “You know, why doesn’t anybody say anything about this?” And he said, “Do you know what they do to people who do?”
I knew what would happen. I knew that there were no whistleblower protections that would protect me from prosecution as a private contractor, as opposed to a direct government employee. But that didn’t change my calculus of what needed to be done. And the fact that I knew there were so many others who had the same concerns, who knew that what we were doing had gone too far, had departed from the fundamental principles of what our US intelligence community is all about—serving the public good—that I was confident that I could do it knowing that even if it cost me so much, it would be giving back so much to so many others who were struggling with the same problems that it would be worth it.
And so because of this, I have to say that although I am honored to be in the company of so many distinguished Ridenhour awardees, this prize is not just for me. This prize is for a cohort of so many people, whistleblowers who came before me—the Binneys, the Drakes, the Wiebes. And the other intelligence officers throughout the intelligence community who remember that the first principle of any American intelligence official is not an oath to secrecy but a duty to the public, a commitment to speak truth to power, to prevent the sort of intelligence failures that lead us to wars, that don’t protect our country, that don’t keep anybody safe. And, in fact, put us all at risk.
There’s been a lot said about oaths, and the oath that I remember is James Clapper raising his hand swearing to tell the truth, and then lying to the American public. I also swore an oath, but that oath was not to secrecy. That oath was to protect and defend our Constitution and the policies of this nation—[from] all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But what I saw was that our Constitution is being violated on a massive scale. And I did report this internally. I told all of my co-workers; I told my superiors. I showed them “Boundless Informant,” which is a special kind of map that any NSA employee could see that showed the level of incidents of NSA interception, collection, storage and analysis of events around the world. And I asked these people, “Do you think it’s right that the NSA is collecting more information about Americans in America than it is about Russians in Russia?” Because that’s what our systems do. We collect more information about our own people than about any other population in the world. When you pick up the phone and when you make a call, when you make a purchase, when you buy a book—all of that is collected. And I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen.
People had questions about whether or not it was true, whether or not it was really possible, whether or not I was exaggerating when I said I, sitting at my desk, could wiretap anyone in America, from a federal judge to the president of the United States. And I’m telling you, that is not hyperbole. So long as I had a private e-mail address or some other digital network selector, it’s true. And what is truly frightening but has not been reported at all since these disclosures is that it’s happened before. In 2009, The New York Timesreported that an NSA analyst inappropriately accessed Bill Clinton’s e-mail. We also saw the stories of the disclosures to Congress about a program where NSA analysts, military analysts, were abusing these tools to monitor their wives, their girlfriends, their lovers.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: When they committed these crimes—when James Clapper committed a crime by lying under oath to the American people—were they actually held accountable? Was anyone tried? Were charges brought? It’s been years since these events occurred, whereas within days of the time I went public, three criminal charges were filed against me personally.
We have to ask ourselves: If we can hold the lowest, most junior members of our community to this high standard of behavior, why can’t we ask the same of our most senior officials? James Clapper is the most senior intelligence official in the United States of America, and I think he has a duty to tell the truth to the public. Since that time, thanks to the work of our free press, thanks to the work of our elected representatives, thanks to the work of our civil society, these policies, these abuses, are changing. And though they’re not finished yet and we haven’t won the day, we have to continue to press for reforms; we will get there so long as we try. “A republic, if you can keep it,” as they say.
And we have to remember that the world has changed, and the way we live has changed, but our values have not changed. Hopefully, we’ll see the USA Freedom Act, which is the only act that really starts to address these concerns, get passed, and we’ll see changes made by principled, skilled technologists throughout the US academic community and around the world working to enshrine our values of privacy and the commitment to freedom into the very fabric of our global infrastructure. So not only do we protect American citizens’ freedoms, but we protect the freedoms of citizens everywhere, whether they’re in Russia, whether they’re in China. So it doesn’t matter if some government somewhere passes these terrible laws. Our technology can enforce our rights even where governments fail to do so.
This is the way forward: it’s cooperation, it’s working together, it’s thinking and having a public dialogue. It’s getting government out from behind closed doors and restoring the public to its seat at the table of government. And together, we can restore the balance of our rights to what our Constitution promises and in fact guarantees. Thank you.
Bamford: Since we’re here at the Truth Telling Prize, the question I’d ask Ed is: What advice, if any, would you give to somebody else that was in your position, somebody else that may be sitting at the NSA today and seeing something going across their desk that is very questionable or illegal?
Snowden: This is always a difficult question, because I think every case is unique. It depends on what you see, how do you see it, what is involved. What I would say is that Thomas Drake and Bill Binney showed us that even if you reveal classic waste, fraud and abuse, frivolous spending, things like that, and you take it to Congress, there’s a very good chance the FBI will kick in your door, pull you out of the shower naked at gunpoint in front of your family and ruin your life. Tom Drake was a senior executive at the National Security Agency, and now he works at an Apple store. Our own inspector generals in the DoD and the NSA are the ones who reported him to the DoJ.
So you have to be careful about the system as it is. I would say, ideally, work with Congress in advance to try to make sure that we have reformed laws, that we have better protections, that all these shortcomings and failures in our oversight infrastructure are addressed so that the next time we have an American whistleblower who has something the public needs to know, they can go to their lawyer’s office instead of the airport. Right now, I’m not sure that they have a real alternative. But if they’re going to do something, they better use encryption, and they better do it from an IP address that’s not at their home.
Poitras: Recently, Betty Medsger published an extraordinary book that documented the activists in Media, Pennsylvania, who broke into an FBI office [in 1971] and ultimately revealed COINTELPRO. And I’m just curious if that’s a case you had known about before, and any thoughts you might have on that?
Snowden: I think that everyone in the intelligence community was familiar with COINTELPRO. But the actual act of how it became public, for me, was a surprise. I hadn’t known the story and the pathology behind it. And it is incredible, the courage that they had. It takes a lot of chutzpah to actually break into the FBI office to steal from them and then send it to the press. But it’s important to realize that even though they broke the law to do that, they revealed some of the most important government abuses of the last century.
And I think that’s really something that we all have to remember, is that there are cases—and there have been throughout history, and there will continue to be throughout time—where what is lawful is not necessarily right or necessarily moral. It doesn’t take long for an American to think back to periods when things were legal but they weren’t ethical, when they weren’t moral. And I think today when we see similar policies, every citizen has a duty to resist those and to try to build a better, more fair society.
Watch Next: Edward Snowden and Laura Poitras accept their Ridenhour Prizes

donderdag 8 mei 2014

The Jean McConville killing: I'm completely innocent. But what were my accusers' motives?


Four days of interrogation produced not a scrap of evidence. This was an assault by sinister forces on the peace process itself
Gerry Adams on euro campaign trial, Belfast
Gerry Adams, the Sinn Féin president, at a European election campaign rally in south Belfast on 5 May. Photograph: Paul Mcerlane/EPA
My recent detention and interrogation was a serious attempt to bring charges against me. It was conducted by the retrospective major investigation team (Remit) of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is based at Carrickfergus, County Antrim.
I had contacted the PSNI in March to tell them I was available to meet them. This followed another intense round of the media speculation that has tried to link me to the killing in 1972 of Jean McConville. It is part of a sustained malicious, untruthful and sinister campaign going back many years.
Last Monday the PSNI said it wanted to speak to me. I was concerned about the timing. Sinn Féin is currently involved in very important EU and local government elections. Notwithstanding this, I travelled to the Antrim serious crime suite where I arrived at 8.05pm.
En route I talked to the senior investigating officer. He was insisting that I meet him in the car park opposite the PSNI barracks. He told me that I must get into a squad car and that he would then arrest me and drive me into the barracks. He said he couldn't arrest me inside the barracks under the legislation.
I told him I was going directly to the station of my own accord, voluntarily. As it turned out there is no legislative bar on me being arrested within the station. And subsequently that's exactly what happened.
My solicitor was present. I was escorted by two detectives from Remit to the serious crime suite. A custody sergeant took me through all of the processes and protocols. My belt, tie, comb, watch, Fáinne and Easter Lily pins were removed. My solicitor made representations that I be allowed to keep my pen and notebook given that the offence that I was accused of occurred 42 years ago. After some toing and froing, I was eventually granted this request by the custody superintendent.
Shortly before the first of 33 taped interviews, I was served with a pre-interview brief. This accused me of IRA membership and conspiracy in the murder of Jean McConville. It also claimed that the PSNI had new evidential material to put to me. The interview commenced at 10.55pm. Two interrogators – a man and a woman – conducted all the interrogations. All of this was recorded and videotaped. My private consultations with my solicitor may also have been covertly recorded.
I was told that the interrogations were an evidence-gathering process, and that the police would be making the case that I was a member of the IRA; that I had a senior IRA managerial role in Belfast at the time of Jean McConville's abduction; and that I was therefore bound to know about her killing. I challenged my interrogators to produce the new evidential material. They said that this would happen at a later interview but they wanted to take me through my childhood, family history and so on. Over the following four days it became clear that the objective of the interviews was to get to the point where they could charge me with IRA membership and thereby link me to the McConville case. The membership charge was clearly their principal goal. The interrogators made no secret of this. At one point the male detective described their plan as "a stage-managed approach". It later transpired that it was a phased strategy, with nine different phases.
The first phases dealt with my family history of republican activism. My own early involvement in Sinn Féin as a teenager – when it was a banned organisation. My time in the 1960s in the civil rights movement and various housing action groups in west Belfast, the pogroms of 1969 and the start of the Troubles.
It was asserted that I was guilty of IRA membership through association because of my family background – my friends. They referred to countless pieces of "open source" material that, they said, linked me to the IRA. These were anonymous newspaper articles from 1971 and 1972, photographs of Martin McGuinness and me at republican funerals, and books about the period.
If any of these claimed I was in the IRA, then that was, according to my interrogators, evidence. They consistently cast up my habit of referring to friends as "comrades". This, they said, was evidence of IRA membership. They claimed I was turned by special branch during interrogations in Belfast's Palace Barracks in 1972 and that I became an MI5 agent! They also spoke about the peace talks in 1972, and my periods of internment and imprisonment in Long Kesh. This was presented as "bad-character evidence".
Much of the interrogations concerned Boston College's so-called Belfast Project conceived by Paul Bew – a university lecturer and a former adviser to the former unionist leader David Trimble – and run by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre.
Both Moloney and McIntyre are opponents of the Sinn Féin leadership and our strategy, and have interviewed former republicans who are also hostile. These former republicans have accused us of betrayal and have said we should be shot because of our support for the Good Friday agreement and policing.
The allegation of conspiracy in the killing of Mrs McConville is based almost exclusively on hearsay from unnamed alleged Boston College interviewees but mainly from the late Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes. Other alleged interviewees were identified only by a letter of the alphabet, eg interviewee R or Y. It has been claimed by prosecutors in court that one of these is Ivor Bell, although the interrogators told me he has denied the allegations.
I rejected all allegations made about me in the Boston tapes, which have now been totally discredited. Historians from the college have made it clear that this "never was a Boston College History Department project". A spokesman for the college has confirmed that it would be prepared tohand back interviews to those involved.
I am innocent of any involvement in the abduction, killing or burial of Mrs McConville, or of IRA membership. I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will, but I am not uncritical of IRA actions and particularly the terrible injustice inflicted on Mrs McConville and her family. I very much regret what happened to them and their mother and understand the antipathy they feel towards republicans.
This case raises in a stark way the need for the legacy issues of the past to be addressed in a victim-centred way. Sinn Féin is committed to dealing with the past, including the issue of victims and their families. We have put forward our own proposals for an independent international truth recovery process, which both governments have rejected. We have also signed up for the compromise proposals presented by US envoys Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan. The two unionist parties and the British government have not.
Sinn Féin is for policing. There is no doubt about this. Civic, accountable, public service policing. It has not been achieved yet.
During my interrogation, no new evidential material, indeed no evidence of any kind, was produced. When I was being released I made a formal complaint about aspects of my interrogation. My arrest and the very serious attempt to charge me with IRA membership is damaging to the peace process and the political institutions.
There is only one way for our society to go, and that is forward. I am a united Irelander. I want to live in a citizen-centred, rights-based society. There is now a peaceful and democratic way to achieve this. The two governments are guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They have failed in this responsibility. The future belongs to everyone. So, as well as the British and Irish governments, civic society, church leaders, trade unions, the media, academia and private citizens must find a way to provide positive leadership.
The Good Friday agreement is the people's agreement. It does not belong to the elites. It must be defended, implemented and promoted.
Yes, deal with the past. Yes, deal with victims. But the focus needs to be on the future. There will be bumps on that road. There will be diversions. There are powerful vested interests who have not bought into the peace process. Obstacles will be erected, but we must build the peace and see off sinister forces against equality and justice for everyone.
For legal reasons, comments will not be switched on on this article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/jean-mcconville-killing-gerry-adams-innocent-accusers