There are some real gems in that LAT piece that Greenwald labels as propaganda[1]:
>What the Church and Pike committees found" nearly 40 years ago was "that people were doing things that were wrong. That's not happening here," Alexander said.
The particular definition of wrong used by Alexander would be interesting to know.
>"When you're the good guy and you're on the side of truth and democracy and the American way, anything that is an impediment to you is naturally bad and needs to be overcome, even if it's the law," German said.
Apparently the ability to have private communication digitally is one such annoying impediment.
>Now, Russian ground commanders and Al Qaeda cell leaders are on notice that the NSA is nearly everywhere.
Those evil Russian ground commanders... One tip for the author of this piece: Snowden leaks enabling child pornographers to avoid surveillance would be a much more effective appeal to emotion than a topical example like renewed fears of Russian aggression that risk fading from the zeitgeist soon!
I believe the “When you're the good guy …“ quote by Michael German is sarcasm, or perhaps that's the wrong word and he's speaking from the point of view of Keith Alexander.
The article says German is at the Brennan Center for Justice, a civil liberties organization, and believes that Alexander's world view "reflects a career in the national security bubble".
Not to mention that if anyone is unaware the NSA is watching, they will make pretty terrible criminals. The proof has only emerged recently, but it's not like anyone actually thought the NSA wasn't spying on its citizens.
Whoah, queue the next level of conspiracy theories. Now that everything the tinfoil hats were saying a decade ago is revealed as 100% real and operational, we need to go to the next level Inception-style.
I'm not sure what anger you are talking about here. Nobody is demonstrating in the streets. Angela Merkel is unhappy that her phone was targeted, but what of it? As for the various national security apparatuses, they were already part of the system.
John “Chris” Inglis just revealed to the world that the NSA was–is?–intercepting every single email, text message, and phone-location signal in real time for the entire country of Iraq. Obviously, the fact that the NSA has this capability, and used it, is Top Secret. What authority did Chris Inglis have to disclose this?
This capability in Iraq had already been publicly disclosed. It's detailed in Bob Woodward's 2011 book, "Obama's Wars". Search for "RTRG" in the excerpt.† It isn't clear who disclosed the program to Woodward, but I think it's pretty clear they wanted the capability to counter the (very real) IED threat in Iraq. It actually sounds pretty reasonable and not so Orwellian in that context.
It doesn't sound so reasonable if you are Iraqi, particularly if like most Iraqis you already regarded the presence of the Americans as a colonialist occupation.
The 'need' for this program in Iraq is dubious. It (the program) was a training run in a country we already had complete control over. They could already defeat IEDs with microcells (either shutdown or ring all the phones within 5km). Be wary when someone feeds you a line you already want to accept.
The thrust of this article seems to hinge on the apparent contradiction of Gen. Keith Alexander saying that Snowden leaks jeopardize lives while at the same time the published revelation (sourced from the NSA) that there exists secret NSA operation to monitor communications in Iraq.
It seems that this mischaracterizes what Gen. Alexander says in the linked article.
In that article he says that there is a possibility that some of the information Snowden may or may not have leaked to the press (and which might be published in the future) could cost people their lives. Not that any secret information about NSA operations will cost people their lives. So, a bit cynical perhaps as he's basically saying only the NSA can make the judgement call about what information is "safe" to leak (thus avoiding accountability,) but this isn't really a contradiction.
A larger issue one might take with Alexander's words is that Snowden only sent the information to media organizations; it's up to them what and how much to publish. The NSA could attempt to protect lives that are at stake by offering feedback to these news organizations about Snowden leak stories before they're published to let them know which specific parts, if published, might endanger lives.
No, you missed the point. The information in the LAT article (sourced, on-the-record from NSA) was literally the same information NSA had apparently asked the Washington Post to redact just days earlier, "national security" being the justification. That was the point.
Is PSYOP illegal against your own citizens? It sure sounds like that…
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to US objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities available to the US. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict.
FVEY PSYOP (previously dismissed as tinfoilhattery when reported in places like The Guardian[1] or elsewhere over the years) has been revealed in The Incercept's reporting on Snowden documents[2].
As for legality, the important parts of Smith-Mundt were repealed several years ago. But you should totally trust them, PSYOP would never be carried out on their own populations, in social media or media in general.
Interesting move. Presumably, it's preferable to the NSA to let everyone know MYSTIC was implemented in Iraq, rather than deal with the (further) increased mistrust that might arise from suspicions that it was used on e.g. some European ally.
Through 'Full Spectrum Dominance', in the news media, 'box set' dramas, movies and dead-tree spy thrillers an impression is made that the spy agencies are all seeing and all powerful. Fact and fiction are mixed up so you don't know what to believe and what not to believe. Whatever. The impression is made: you cannot beat The Man, the casino always wins and they know your thoughts before you think them.
That was my initial thought as well, but additionally it serves as a form of misdirection, presumably taking many people's attention away from the other countries where the program is being implemented.
I've held the theory for a while that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill (and that the US govt knows this). Nice to see others are observing the same.
They have a few decades of computational (game theoretic) modeling and decades of (grant supported) academic research
into individual and collective behavior behind them.
> ~rabbit hole
Apply that well worn razor. What information has actually been disclosed? Extra extra! "states spy on states"; "government reads your mail"; "technology firms are in bed with the military-industrial complex"; ...
What you need to ask yourself is whether you are now more inclinded to be guarded in your conversations with your fellow citizens and are self-censoring.
>What the Church and Pike committees found" nearly 40 years ago was "that people were doing things that were wrong. That's not happening here," Alexander said.
The particular definition of wrong used by Alexander would be interesting to know.
>"When you're the good guy and you're on the side of truth and democracy and the American way, anything that is an impediment to you is naturally bad and needs to be overcome, even if it's the law," German said.
Apparently the ability to have private communication digitally is one such annoying impediment.
>Now, Russian ground commanders and Al Qaeda cell leaders are on notice that the NSA is nearly everywhere.
Those evil Russian ground commanders... One tip for the author of this piece: Snowden leaks enabling child pornographers to avoid surveillance would be a much more effective appeal to emotion than a topical example like renewed fears of Russian aggression that risk fading from the zeitgeist soon!
[1]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-alexander-nsa-20140331,0...