Der NSA-Skandal geht in Woche sechs, doch die Aufklärung läuft schleppend. Die Spähaffäre wirft ein Schlaglicht auf das Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Agenten-Apparat. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Berlin – Die Bundesregierung gerät im Skandal um amerikanische Spähaktivitäten zunehmend unter Druck – und zieht sich auf drei Formeln zurück. Erstens: Deutsche und ausländische Nachrichtendienste arbeiten zusammen. Zweitens: Von der Dimension der Spähprogramme habe man erst durch den Whistleblower Edward Snowden erfahren. Drittens: Details über die Arbeit deutscher Geheimdienste werden nicht öffentlich, sondern in Gremien beraten.

In einem dieser Gremien ging die Debatte um die Spionageaffäre am Dienstag in die nächste Runde: Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) war im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium zu Gast – eine vertraulich tagende Gruppe, die die deutschen Geheimdienste überwachen soll. Dreimal tagte das Gremium in den vergangenen Wochen. Viel klüger ist man allerdings noch immer nicht.

Der NSA-Skandal wirft ein Licht auf das undurchsichtige Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Geheimdiensten: Wer informiert wen? Kann man Nachrichtendienste überhaupt kontrollieren? Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die wichtigsten Fragen und Antworten:

1. Warum tagt das Gremium geheim?

Die elf Mitglieder des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums (PKG) setzen sich aus Innen- und Sicherheitsexperten aller Bundestagsfraktionen zusammen. Sie treffen sich in einem abhörsicheren, fensterlosen Raum in einem Nebengebäude des Reichstags, unweit der Kantine. Da die Arbeit der Geheimdienste naturgemäß geheim bleiben soll, ist die Gruppe zur Verschwiegenheit verpflichtet, auch gegenüber anderen Abgeordneten.

Innenminister Friedrich berichtete am Dienstag dem PKG, was er während seines Besuchs in Washington an Informationen bekam. Ähnlich wie beim Bundessicherheitsrat, der über Rüstungsexporte entscheidet, dringen aber nur selten Details nach draußen, so auch dieses Mal.

Bei der letzten Sitzung war Kanzleramtsminister Ronald Pofalla geladen, der unter anderem für die Koordinierung der Geheimdienste zuständig ist. Dazu die Chefs der drei Geheimdienste: Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Militärischer Abschirmdienst (MAD), Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV). Die Grünen fordern, die Kanzlerin selbst müsse vor dem Gremium erscheinen. Das soll in absehbarer Zeit allerdings nicht passieren.

Die Regierung muss das Gremium über die Arbeit der Geheimdienste und besondere Vorgänge unterrichten. Die Gruppe darf Geheimakten einsehen und Mitarbeiter der Dienste befragen.

So weit die Theorie. In der Praxis kann die Arbeit frustrierend sein, denn was Bundesregierung und Geheimdienste für berichtenswert halten, entscheiden sie zunächst einmal selbst. Die Folge: Von wirklich heiklen Vorfällen oder möglichen Skandalen erfahren die Bundestagskontrolleure oft erst aus den Medien.

2. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Zwar mag die Kontrolle hierzulande besser sein als anderswo. Doch eine echte Überwachung der Geheimdienste ist kaum möglich. Wie sollen elf Parlamentarier auch überblicken, was Zehntausende Agenten im In- und Ausland treiben?

Der Grünen-Abgeordnete Hans-Christian Ströbele, Dienstältester im PKG, sagte einmal: “Wie sollen wir die Geheimdienste kontrollieren, wenn wir keine Informationen bekommen?” Der Abgeordnete Wolfgang Neskovic, der für die Linken bis 2012 im PKG saß, nannte das Kontrollniveau “erbärmlich”, das Gremium einen “Wachhund ohne Gebiss”. Geheimdienstler würden die Sitzungen als “Märchenstunde” verspotten.

Neben dem PKG ist aber auch noch die beim Bundestag angesiedelte sogenannte G-10-Kommission für die Kontrolle der Geheimdienste zuständig. Der Name bezieht sich auf das “Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses” (Artikel-10-Gesetz). Auch dieses Gremium tagt geheim. Es hat vier Mitglieder, die vom PKG bestellt werden. Sie müssen keine Bundestagsabgeordneten sein. Derzeit sitzt dem Gremium der SPD-Politiker Hans de With vor, der einst Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär im Justizministerium war.

Die G-10-Kommission muss ihre Genehmigung erteilen, wenn Geheimdienste Computer oder Telefone anzapfen wollen, um deutsche Staatsbürger auszuspähen. Auch die Durchsuchung von Kommunikationsdaten nach bestimmten verdächtigen Schlagworten muss die Kommission genehmigen.

2011 soll das Gremium den Inlandsgeheimdiensten insgesamt 156 Abhörmaßnahmen bewilligt haben. Die Gründe dafür sind im Gesetz festgelegt, unter anderem geht es um Terrorabwehr, Waffen- und Drogenschmuggel sowie organisierte Geldwäsche.

Allerdings kann auch der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND bei der G-10-Kommission beantragen, im großen Stil Daten an den internationalen Internetknotenpunkten abzufischen. Eine flächendeckende Überwachung ist verboten, das Gesetz sieht eine Grenze von 20 Prozent vor. Die wird angeblich nicht ausgeschöpft, sondern “pendelt bei etwa fünf Prozent”, sagte jüngst Kommissionschef de With.

3. Was wussten deutsche Agenten vom US-Lauschangriff?

Darauf gibt es bislang keine abschließende Antwort. Die hiesigen Geheimdienstler sagen, sie hätten keine Hinweise darauf, dass an deutschen Kommunikationsknotenpunkten Daten abgesaugt wurden. Es gebe zwar eine Zusammenarbeit mit den US-Behörden. Über massenhafte Lauscheinsätze gegen deutsche Bürger sei man aber nicht informiert gewesen.

Der Whistleblower Snowden hatte im SPIEGEL angegeben, deutsche und amerikanische Geheimdienste steckten in Sachen Internetüberwachung “unter einer Decke”. Auch ein Bericht der “Bild”-Zeitung wirft neue Fragen auf. Demnach wusste der BND angeblich seit Jahren von der nahezu kompletten Datenerfassung durch die Amerikaner und griff in Gefahrenlagen aktiv darauf zu.

Derzeit kann nichts nachgewiesen, aber Zweifel können auch nicht ausgeräumt werden. Wenn deutsche Geheimdienste von den Aktionen der US-Dienste gewusst und diese möglicherweise unterstützt haben, wäre das nach deutschem Recht strafbar.

4. Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die Kanzlerin telefonierte mit US-Präsident Barack Obama, mehrere Fragenkataloge wurden verfasst, zwei Delegationen nach Washington geschickt. Zur Zeit wird gewartet: Darauf, dass die USA einige als geheim eingeordnete Dokumente deklassifizieren, also aus der Geheimhaltungsstufe herausheben. Von diesem Schritt verspricht sich Berlin Aufschluss über das Ausmaß der NSA-Aktivitäten. Weitere Besuche und Gespräche sind geplant.

Teile der Opposition fordern einen parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss. Schnelle Antworten gäbe es durch den aber auch nicht. Im EU-Parlament beschäftigt sich der Innenausschuss mit der Materie und will bis Ende des Jahres einen Bericht vorlegen. Zu einem Sonderausschuss konnte man sich in Straßburg nicht durchringen. Sechs Wochen nach den Enthüllungen sind also wichtige Fragen noch immer offen. Gut möglich, dass das Thema den Wahlkampf mitbestimmen wird – vor allem, wenn noch weitere Details herauskommen sollten.

16. Juli 2013, 14:25 Uhr
Von Annett Meiritz und Philipp Wittrock

Find this story at 16 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Noch immer behauptet die Bundesregierung eisern, sie habe von den US-Schnüffelprogrammen erst kürzlich erfahren. Nun wird klar, dass der BND schon vor Jahren gezielt in den USA nach gespeicherten Daten von entführten Deutschen fragte – und sie auch bekam.

Berlin – Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder von der Sammelwut der US-Geheimdienste im Internet profitiert und offenkundig von der kompletten Speicherung auch deutscher Daten gewusst. Unter Berufung auf US-Geheimdienstler berichtete die “Bild”-Zeitung am Montag, der deutsche Dienst habe bei Geiselnahmen im Jemen und Afghanistan in den vergangenen Jahren mehrfach gezielt um die von der NSA gespeicherten Internetdaten der Entführten gebeten. So sollten die letzten Kontakte der Gekidnappten und mögliche Hintergründe des Verschwindens recherchiert werden.

Was sich wie eine selbstverständliche Amtshilfe unter befreundeten Diensten anhört, hat weitreichende Implikationen. Da der BND sich direkt wegen der gespeicherten Daten an die US-Kollegen wandte, müssen die Deutschen von dem Speicherprogramm der Amerikaner gewusst haben. Ebenso muss dem Geheimdienst klar gewesen sein, dass die USA auch deutsche Kommunikation standardmäßig speichern.

Die neuen Fakten passen nicht zur angeblichen Ahnungslosigkeit der deutschen Regierung bis hoch ins Kanzleramt. Diesem ist der BND direkt unterstellt. Von dort ließ Kanzlerin Merkel noch in der vergangenen Woche mitteilen, sie habe erst aus der Presse vom Abhörprogramm Prism erfahren. Seit Anfang Juni enthüllt der Ex-Geheimdienstmitarbeiter Edward Snowden immer wieder Details über die Praktiken der internationalen Geheimdienste (eine Chronik der Affäre finden Sie hier).

Für den BND waren die US-Daten sicherlich hilfreich. Bei Entführungen sind vor allem die letzten E-Mails und Telefongespräche wichtig. An ihnen kann man ablesen, ob die Opfer bedroht wurden, es geschäftliche Probleme im Vorfeld gab oder ob gar das Umfeld der Gekidnappten an der Verschleppung beteiligt sein könnte.

Die Daten der NSA flossen laut “Bild”-Zeitung mehrfach in die Arbeit deutscher Krisenstäbe ein, um entführte Deutsche zu befreien. US-Regierungs- und Geheimdienstkreise betonen laut der Zeitung ebenfalls, dass der BND seit Jahren von der nahezu totalen Datenerfassung weiß, in Gefahrenlagen darauf zugreifen konnte – und dies auch aktiv tat.

Auch in Zukunft sollen die Daten fließen

Die Bundesregierung reagierte ausweichend auf diese Enthüllungen. Ein Regierungssprecher sagte lediglich, es sei “bekannt, dass es zwischen den deutschen Nachrichtendiensten und US-Diensten eine langjährige Kooperation gibt”.

Tatsächlich aber bangen die Dienste derzeit um diese Kooperation. So bat Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich bei seiner US-Reise hinter verschlossenen Türen eindringlich, dass die USA trotz der Affäre auch in Zukunft NSA-Informationen weitergeben. Dies verlautete aus seinem Ministerium. Aus Friedrichs Sicht sind die US-Daten – ganz gleich wo sie herkommen – für die Gefahrenabwehr in Deutschland extrem wichtig. Öffentlich erwähnt hat er seine Bitte an die USA jedoch in keinem der vielen Statements während und nach der Reise.

15. Juli 2013, 11:16 Uhr

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

German authorities insist they knew nothing of the NSA’s Internet spying operations. But SPIEGEL research shows how closely US and German agencies work together. The German opposition is asking uncomfortable questions 11 weeks ahead of a general election.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government faces uncomfortable questions about German involvement in American and British Internet and telephone surveillance after whistleblower Edward Snowden told SPIEGEL that German agencies and the NSA are “in bed together.”

With a general election due in 11 weeks, the controversy has opened up a new battleground in the campaign, and the opposition center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party are charging onto it.

SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel said it could be that Merkel “knows more than has become known so far.”

Thomas Oppermann, a senior member of the SPD, called on the government to cancel surveillance cooperation agreements with the United States. Hans-Christian Ströbele, a lawmaker with the Greens, said he didn’t believe the government’s statements that it didn’t know about the spying.

“For me it’s just a matter of time before the government admits something,” he told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Petra Pau of the Left Party said Merkel should stop “pretending she knew nothing.”

For the last four weeks, the German government has been insisting that it didn’t know that the United States has spent years monitoring vast quantities of Internet traffic, emails and telephone calls.

The parliament’s oversight committee monitoring German intelligence activities has met three times since the revelations came to light, and each time senior government representatives who had been called to testify shrugged their shoulders.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution — Germany’s domestic intelligence agency — the BND foreign intelligence agency, and Merkel’s Chancellery were all apparently unaware of what has been going on. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he knew nothing but made clear that the data fishing by Germany’s American friends was bound to be OK. Criticism of it, he said, amounted to “anti-Americanism.”

Germany Cooperates Closely With NSA

But Snowden told SPIEGEL that the BND knew more about the activities of the NSA in Germany than previously known.

SPIEGEL reporting also indicates that cooperation between the NSA and Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, is more intensive than previously known.

A lot is at stake for Europe and the US. This week talks will begin on the planned trans-Atlantic free trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Invesment Partnership (TTIP). The Americans’ snooping could endanger the project.

The Snowden case is entering its next round. At first he revealed how the NSA spes on data networks. Last week SPIEGEL reported that the US was also spying on its allies including Germany. Now the controversy has broadened to include whether the allies themselves are involved in the snooping.

There are times when the inner workings of the world suddenly come to light. Veils fall to the ground and the world suddenly looks different. These are such times.

A man does something that represents the best traditions of the West — he enlightens people, points out wrongdoing and opens eyes. That’s what Edward Snowden has done. And what’s happening to him? The West’s leading nation, the US, is hunting him down, and almost every country is going along with it, especially the rest of the West.

Western Nations Kow-Towing to US

Fear is governing the world, fear of the wrath of the US, fear of President Barack Obama who was once hailed as a global savior. Few seem ready to dare to take on the political and economic superpower.

The West is making itself look ridiculous through submissiveness, by failing to live up to its own values. Meanwhile, states like China or Russia, the constant focus of Western moral finger-wagging, were the first where Snowden sought shelter.

Last Wednesday, Merkel and Obama had a telephone conversation in which both tried to play down the row. There would be “opportunities for an intense exchange about these questions,” officials said afterwards. That wasn’t the tough talking that 78 percent of Germans are demanding of Merkel in her dealings with the US on the issue, according to a recent opinion poll by Infratest Dimap.

This week a German government delegation will travel to Washington for talks with the Department of Homeland Security, the NSA and the US administration. They hope to glean information on what has been going on. When German opposition parties complained that the delegation only consisted of second-tier officials, Interior Minister Friedrich hastily decided to join them.

9/11 Silenced Criticism of ‘Echelon’ Spying System

Foreign data snooping has caused outrage in Germany and Europe before. Twelve years ago, a European Parliament committee criticized “Echelon,” which it described as a “global surveillance system for private and business communcations.” In a 200-page report, the committee said that within Europe, all communications via email, telephone and fax were regularly monitored by the intelligence services of the US, Britain, Canada and Australia.

The European lawmakers recommended a series of rules and agreements to curb the snooping. But two months later, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and it quickly emerged that some of them had lived in Germany. All criticism of “Echelon” fell abruptly silent.

But the German government, despite all its current protestations of ignorance and innocence, cannot be unaware that US surveillance specialists remain active on German soil. At present the NSA is expanding its presence in Germany considerably.

The best-known monitoring facility is in the Bavarian town of Bad Aibling, extensively described in the “Echelon” report. Officially, the Americans gave up the listening post in 2004. But the white domes of the “Echelon” system, known as radomes, are still there. When the site was officially turned over to civilian use, that didn’t apply to the area with the snooping technology. A connecting cable now transmits the captured signals to the site of the Mangfall army base a few hundred meters away. This is officially a German army communications base — but in truth it belongs to the BND. Cooperating closely with a handful of NSA surveillance specialists, the German foreign intelligence service analyzes telephone calls, faxes and everything else transmitted via satellite.

BND Admits Monitoring Cooperation With NSA

Officially, the BND post in Bad Aibling doesn’t exist, and neither does the local cooperation with the Americans. But in a confidential meeting with the parliament’s intelligence oversight committee, BND head Gerhard Schindler last Wednesday confirmed the cooperation with the US service,

There are other locations in Germany where the Americans engage in data monitoring. The US army runs a top secret lstening post in the town of Griesheim near Darmstadt, in western Germany. Five radomes stand on the edge of the August-Euler airfield, hidden behind a little forest. If you drive past “Dagger Complex” you get suspicious looks from security guards. It’s forbidden to take photos. Inside, soldiers analyze information for the armed forces in Europe. The NSA supports the analysts.

The need for data appears to be so great that the US army is building a new Consolidated Intelligence Center in the nearby city of Wiesbaden. The $124 million building will house bug-proof offices and a high-tech control center. As soon as it’s completed, “Dagger Complex” will be shut down. Only US construction firms are being used. Even the building materials are being brought in from the US and closely guarded along the way.

Is it really conceivable that the German government knows nothing of what the NSA is doing on its own doorstep? Last month Interior Minister Friedrich said in a parliamentary debate on the NSA snooping: “Germany has fortunately been spared big attacks in recent years. We owe that in part to the information provided by our American friends.” Sentences like that reveal a pragmatic view of the US surveillance apparatus: What the NSA gets up to in detail is secondary — what counts is what its snooping reveals. And that information, intelligence officials admit, is indispensable.

Without the tip-offs provided by the Americans, authorities would be partly blind in the fight against terrorism. While the BND and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution are bound by strict rules, foreign intelligence agencies operating in Germany are largely uncontrolled in what they do, as long as it serves the war on terror.

Frankfurt’s Role as East-West Data Crossroads

The example of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial center, illustrates that. Frankfurt is a major crossroads for digital data. This where fiber-optic cables from Eastern Europe and Central Asia meet data lines from Western Europe. Emails, photos, telepone calls and tweets from crisis-hit countries in the Middle East also pass through Frankfurt. This is where international providers — companies like Deutsche Telekom or US firm Level 3, which claims to transmit a third of the world’s Internet traffic — operate digital hubs.

For agencies like the NSA or BND, Frankfurt is an inexhaustible source of information. Documents provided by Snowden show that the NSA accesses half a billion pieces of communication each month. The BND also helps itself to data here. It is allowed to tap up to 20 percent of it. The service feeds data from five hubs in Germany for analysis to its headquarters in Pullach near Munich. Its analysts comb through the data for phone calls, emails or Internet messages that might uncover a nuclear smuggling deal or an al-Qaida plot.

The BND uses the NSA’s help to analyze Internet traffic from the Middle East. The Americans provide the Germans with special tools that work with Arabic search terms. Does the US agency get access to the data in return? The BND denies this. All cooperation is in the form of assessing “finished intelligence,” or completed intelligence reports, it insists.

But relations between the BND and NSA are closer than publicly admitted. They work together on clearly defined individual joint operations abroad when it comes to fighting terrorism or monitoring weapons shipments. At the Bad Aibling listening post, an NSA team works closely with BND agents. The BND uses Bad Aibling mainly to monitor Thuraya satellite phones used in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Americans help the Germans in this work. Is it really conceivable that with such close cooperation the one partner didn’t know what the other was doing?

US Need Not Fear Much German Criticism

“We have no information so far that Internet hubs in Germany were spied on by the NSA,” says the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maassen. He also has no information on any snooping on the German government by the US. The agency has set up a working group to investigate Snowden’s allegations.

In the end it’s relatively insignificant whether any light will be shed on the outflow of German Internet data to the US. The German authorities are unlikely to criticize the Americans too harshly. “We can be blackmailed,” said a high-ranking security official. “If the NSA shut off the tap, we’d be blind.”

The US isn’t just a friend, it’s an all-powerful force one can choose to be friends with or not. The Snowden case shows how closely intertwined friendship and submissiveness can be.

SVEN BECKER, THOMAS DARNSTÄDT, JENS GLÜSING, HUBERT GUDE, FRITZ HABEKUSS, KONSTANTIN VON HAMMERSTEIN, MARC HUJER, DIRK KURBJUWEIT, MATHIEU VON ROHR, MARCEL ROSENBACH, MATTHIAS SCHEPP, JÖRG SCHINDLER, GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ, CHRISTOPH SCHULT, HOLGER STARK
07/08/2013 05:47 PM

Find this story at 8 july 2013
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Too much data surveillance?

Not everybody has a sense of irony. Some people simply lack the ability to read between the lines. A funny, ironical remark left online could see the police come knocking at your door.

“I’m known for my sense of irony. But even I would not have come to think of putting a statue of liberty in New York Harbor,” Irish Nobel Prize winner of Literature George Bernard Shaw once said. But, as far as we know, he got away with this sharp-tongued comment when trying to enter US territory, a comment that implicitly made fun of the US’ idea of liberty.

But maybe he was only left alone because in the early 20th century, border officials did not yet have access to the vast amount of data about people desiring to cross into their countries as they do today. Today, every visitor seems transparent; and harmless but remarks are often interpreted as evil intentions. Shaw’s fellow countryman just experienced that.

US Homeland security strike

The young Irishman was denied entry by the US homeland security agency DHS at Los Angeles airport. The reason: an ironic remark on Twitter. The sender insists he wasn’t even targeting the US. On the contrary, he wanted to tell his followers that he was going to “party to the extreme in LA,” and he described it by saying that “digging out Marilyn Monroe” and “destroying America” were part of his plan. But immigration officers didn’t care much about his sense of humor. He spent 12 hours detained in a cell.
Security comes first during border controls in the US

“I can only advise against such remarks, even if you’re sure you’re being ironic,” said Klaus Lodigkeit, a Hamburg-based IT law specialist. “Americans store almost all our phonecalls, they store a lot online, and make backup copies. And if they search for a name or a nickname online and find such posts they can link to a certain person then you represent a danger for the security of the United States. So be careful.”

Cheeky teenager

But offhand and ironic remarks online can also be misinterpreted outside of airports’ immigration zones. Just before the verdict for security guard George Zimmerman was announced, the killer of black teenager Trayvon Martin, a 15-year-old in the small town of Zion in Illinois posted a comment online. If Zimmerman was acquitted, he wrote, he would shoot dead every single person in Zion and then also be acquitted of charges.

A short while later, local police detained the teenager. After an examination, the officers were convinced he didn’t constitute a threat. “He doesn’t own any weapons and doesn’t have access to any either,” a police report said.

Crazy or just foolish?

18-year-old US citizen Justin Carter wasn’t that lucky. According to his parents, he had a fight with other users while playing a fantasy role-playing game online. When the users then wrote on Facebook that he was “a lunatic, crazy, and off his head,” Carter replied: “Yeah, sure I’m a total mess, I will go and shoot children at a school and eat their beating hearts.”

He must have instantly realized that remarks like that are often misunderstood. He quickly added a ‘LOL’ [‘Laughing out loud’] and a ‘JK’ [‘Just Kidding’]. But it didn’t help: He spent several months in prison because of that comment on Facebook. He has been released on bail.

“If you publish a concrete threat to life or physical condition online, the threat itself constitutes a criminal offence,” according to IT legal expert Lodigkeit. “It’s enough to be convicted. And you’re remanded in custody while investigations are conducted because you’re considered a flight risk.”
The Pirate party criticizes online spying and surveillance activities by governments

But does that give security agencies in Germany and the US the right to spy on private communication? “No,” said Mario Tants, spokesman for online freedom advocates the Pirate party in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. “In the cases we’ve talked about, security authorities in the US didn’t screen private communication. Instead, what happened was that somebody who knew the respective perpetrator or potential perpetrator gave them hints. And if a real person gives a real hint, then security agencies are obliged to examine what’s going on.”

‘NSA spy protection league’

The latest case from Germany is slightly more confusing in comparison. 28-year-old Daniel Bangert invited others on facebook to join him on a “Walk to the Dagger complex.” It’s a US-American installation near Darmstadt in the German state of Hesse, where the NSA is said to have underground offices. Bangert clearly used an ironic tone, calling his group the “NSA spy protection league,” inviting others to “explore and observe.”

But the US military police in Germany apparently don’t share Bangert’s sense of humor. The Americans informed German security agencies who then visited the young man early in the morning and interrogated him. State security were also involved and asked Bangert questions about his “political leanings,” as he put it.

“That’s exactly what we’re critical of,” said Mario Tants from the Pirates’ party. “In future, any citizen writing anything anywhere has to expect a visit by the police or state protection. That’s the problem in surveillance states, and we’re actually effectively already there.”

Date 21.07.2013
Author Marcus Lütticke / nh
Editor Jessie Wingard

Find this story at 21 July 2013

© 2013 Deutsche Welle

Wegen eines angekündigten Spaziergangs zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex bekam Daniel Bangert Besuch vom Staatsschutz. Das schreckt ihn nicht ab: Jetzt lädt er zu einer zweiten Erkundungstour nach Griesheim, um “NSA-Spione” zu beobachten.

Selten hat ein Spaziergang für so viel Aufsehen gesorgt: Der Griesheimer Daniel Bangert hatte auf Facebook scherzhaft dazu eingeladen, einen Erkundungsgang zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex zu unternehmen. Vor der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung in der Nähe von Darmstadt wolle man “gemeinsam den bedrohten Lebensraum der NSA-Spione erforschen”.

Der ironische Aufruf stieß auf Facebook zunächst nicht auf viele Interessenten, dafür aber bei der Polizei. Die US-Militärpolizei, die für die Sicherheit auf dem Dagger Complex zuständig ist, hatte die deutsche Polizei eingeschaltet – die Bangert prompt aus dem Bett klingelte. Danach kam auch noch der Staatsschutz vorbei und brachte Bangert dazu, seinen Spaziergang als Demo anzumelden, was er auch tat. Schließlich spazierten 70 Leute in Begleitung zweier Streifenwagen zu der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung.

Trotz oder wegen des ganzen Wirbels soll es nun einen weiteren Erkundungsgang geben. “Der Vorstand des NSA-Spion-Schutzbundes lädt Sie recht herzlich zum zweiten Entdecken und Beobachten Wochenende am Dagger Complex ein”, heißt es in einer öffentlichen Einladung auf Facebook.

Ein Picknick auf der Straße

Schließlich war die letzte demonstrative Entdeckertour zwar ein großer Medienerfolg, vom “wissenschaftlichen” Standpunkt aus gesehen aber ein Reinfall: “Ein Teil der Gruppe hat mit allerlei Lockrufen versucht, die NSA-Spione aus ihrem Bau zu locken”, schreibt Bangert in einem Rückblick auf Facebook. Leider habe man aber “keine echten NSA-Spione zu sehen” bekommen. Deshalb wolle man dieses Mal “im Anschluss an den Spaziergang ein Picknick auf der Straße vor dem Dagger Complex machen”. Vielleicht ließen sich die Spione ja “durch den Duft diverser Köstlichkeiten aus ihrem Bau locken”.

Es sollen wieder viele Kameras mitgebracht werden, Papier und Stift, Verpflegung fürs Picknick und Blumen, “um den Lebensraum der NSA-Spione etwas aufzupeppen”. Verkleidungen sind erwünscht, und Theaterrequisiten, etwa in Form von Edward-Snowden-Masken, sind ausdrücklich erlaubt.

Klingt alles wie beim letzten Mal – nur dürften sich diesmal wohl ein paar mehr spazierende Demonstranten einfinden, die aus den Medien vom Wirbel um den ersten Erkundungsgang erfahren haben. Deshalb steht in der aktuellen Einladung außerdem: Der Spaziergang und das anschließende Picknick seien selbstverständlich angemeldet.

Die Teilnehmerzahl ist nicht abzuschätzen

“Wie viele Teilnehmer es werden, ist völlig unberechenbar”, sagt Initiator Daniel Bangert, “das habe ich auch der Polizei gesagt: Es können 50 werden oder auch 1000, wobei ich das nicht glaube.” Er habe diesmal Kooperationsgespräche geführt, und wieder sei der Staatsschutz dabei gewesen, erzählt er. Auch wenn das womöglich in Darmstadt so üblich sei, irritiere ihn das.

Trotzdem tut er sich den ganzen Stress gern an, angefangen bei den Formalitäten bis hin zu den Fragen der vielen Journalisten. “Ich finde einfach, dass da bei den Leuten mehr Interesse herrschen könnte”, begründet er seine Motivation. Und seine Geschichte zeige doch, “dass ein Einzelner sehr wohl etwas erreichen kann, auch ohne Mittel”.

Ansonsten hofft er auf ein bisschen Hilfe durch die anderen selbsternannten Spion-Forscher: Es stünden mehr Ordner zur Verfügung; doch es wäre gut, wenn ein paar Teilnehmer Warnwesten mitbrächten.

19. Juli 2013, 14:19 Uhr
Von Judith Horchert

Find this story at 19 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

A German man who called on Facebook friends concerned about American secret service operations to join him in a walk around a US army spy centre near his home, found secret service men at his door checking his political leanings.

Daniel Bangert, 28, told The Local he had joked about US spies reading what he had written – and had even told his friends he was waiting for a knock on the door – when it actually came.

“I was still very sleepy when the phone rang – it was 7.17 in the morning – and a police officer started asking questions about what I was planning,” he said.

“Then the doorbell rang and I saw out the window that a police van was parked outside. The officer on the phone said I should open the door to the others.”

He put on a “Team Edward” T-shirt with a picture of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, and answered scores of questions about his plans.

Bangert, a veteran of the Blockupy protests in Frankfurt, had set up a group calling itself “NSA spy protection league” (NSA Spion Schutzbund), as if the US spies were an endangered species of birds.

He wanted, he said, to take a walk with some friends to “observe them in their natural habitat” – the Dagger Complex in Griesheim near Darmstadt. This is one base where the NSA (US National Security Agency) is said to operate from. The authority stands accused of monitoring much of Germany’s internet traffic.

The uniformed police seemed satisfied with his answers about the expected number of people on the walk – 32 had shown an interest, Bangert told The Local. But despite there being no specific agenda, and no plans for a rally or speeches, he was told he had to register the event.

“I asked them why, but they could not really explain it to me. They couldn’t help me understand what the difference was between going for a walk and meeting up to play football – which you don’t have to register,” he said.

A few hours later, his phone rang again, and one of the police officers who had been at his house that morning, told him the state security wanted to talk with him.

“She said I should call them, that it was important that I did. So I did, and they asked me again about the Facebook entry, and how many people were expected and so on. Then they asked if I would go to see them or if they could come to see me for a personal conversation.”

He said a state security agent arrived with a local police officer, and asked him a load of questions about his political activities and his opinions, and whether he had any connection to activists willing to use violence. They suggested his Facebook entry could be interpreted in different ways, but he said he was really just organizing a walk.

“Then they told me I should not put the meeting on the internet, that I should not write about it,” he added.

They seemed to be concerned that the walk could get out of control if lots of people showed up – like the Facebook parties which are hijacked by hoodlums. “But I was not offering anything for free like at the parties,” he said.

“And in any case, all there is, is a fence, with nothing behind it – everything is underground. No-one is interested.”

In the end around 80 people showed up on Saturday to take a walk, have a talk and look at the US base.

The “NSA spy protection league” Facebook page says of the day: “A group of people young and old gathered at the Griesheim market square and walked to the NSA spy complex, in the most fabulous weather. On the way there, surveillance methods were discussed … and possible behaviour of the NSA spies was the subject of consideration.”

It said some of the group had tried with various calls to tempt the NSA spies from the building, but none showed themselves. “Taking part in the walk was not enough, just to know that NSA spies are there – everyone agreed they wanted to see NSA spies with their own eyes. We will see what we can do.”

Hannah Cleaver
Published: 15 Jul 2013 17:44 CET | Print version

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© The Local Europe GmbH

WASHINGTON — Four Central Intelligence Agency officers were embedded with the New York Police Department in the decade after Sept. 11, 2001, including one official who helped conduct surveillance operations in the United States, according to a newly disclosed C.I.A. inspector general’s report.

That officer believed there were “no limitations” on his activities, the report said, because he was on an unpaid leave of absence, and thus exempt from the prohibition against domestic spying by members of the C.I.A.

Another embedded C.I.A. analyst — who was on its payroll — said he was given “unfiltered” police reports that included information unrelated to foreign intelligence, the C.I.A. report said.

The once-classified review, completed by the C.I.A. inspector general in December 2011, found that the four agency analysts — more than had previously been known — were assigned at various times to “provide direct assistance” to the local police. The report also raised a series of concerns about the relationship between the two organizations.

The C.I.A. inspector general, David B. Buckley, found that the collaboration was fraught with “irregular personnel practices,” that it lacked “formal documentation in some important instances,” and that “there was inadequate direction and control” by agency supervisors.

“While negative public perception is to be expected from the revelation of the agency’s close and direct collaboration with any local domestic police department, a perception that the agency has exceeded its authorities diminishes the trust placed in the organization,” Mr. Buckley wrote in a cover memo to David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director.

The declassification of the executive summary, in response to a Freedom of Information Act suit, comes at a time of intense interest in domestic spying after leaks by a former contractor for the National Security Agency.

It also comes amid lawsuits against the Police Department alleging unconstitutional surveillance of Muslim communities and mosques in New Jersey and New York. And a group of plaintiffs from a 1971 lawsuit over harassment of political groups by the Police Department’s so-called Red Squad has asked a judge to tighten guidelines stemming from that case on police investigations involving political or religious activity.

Paul J. Browne, a police spokesman, said that the lawsuits were without merit. He also said that the inspector general had found nothing illegal and that the last embedded C.I.A. official left the police in 2012.

“We’re proud of our relationship with C.I.A. and its training,” he said, saying it was partly responsible for the absence of casualties from a terror attack in New York in the years since Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks. He added that the terrorists “keep coming and we keep pushing back.”

The C.I.A.-Police Department partnership dates from 2002, when David Cohen, a former C.I.A. officer who became deputy commissioner for intelligence at the Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks, reached out to his former agency in building up its counterterrorism abilities.

The inspector general’s office began the investigation in August 2011 after The Associated Press published an article about the C.I.A.’s relationship with the Police Department’s intelligence division. It was part of a series about New York police surveillance of Muslims that was later awarded a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.

When the classified report was completed in 2011, spokesmen for the C.I.A. and the Police Department said it had concluded that the C.I.A. had not violated a law and an executive order that prohibited it from domestic spying or performance of law-enforcement powers. But the document shows that that conclusion was not the whole story. The inspector general warned in his cover letter that the collaboration raised “considerable and multifaceted” risks for the agency.

This week, it released an executive summary and cover memo in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit civil-liberties group, which provided it to The New York Times.

“The C.I.A. is not permitted to engage in domestic surveillance,” said Ginger McCall, the director of the group’s Open Government Project. “Despite the assurances of the C.I.A.’s press office, the activities documented in this report cross the line and highlight the need for more oversight.”

Dean Boyd, a C.I.A. spokesman, said the inspector general found no legal violations or evidence that the agency’s support to the Police Department constituted “domestic spying.”

“It should come as no surprise that, after 9/11, the C.I.A. stepped up its cooperation with law enforcement on counterterrorism issues or that some of that increased cooperation was in New York,” he said in an e-mail. “The agency’s operational focus, however, is overseas, and none of the support we have provided to N.Y.P.D. can rightly be characterized as ‘domestic spying’ by the C.I.A. Any suggestion along those lines is simply wrong.”

The report shows that the first of the four embedded agency officers began as an adviser in 2002 and went on an unpaid leave from the agency from 2004 to 2009. During that latter period, it said, he participated in — and directed — “N.Y.P.D. investigations, operations, and surveillance activities directed at U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons.”

The official received a Police Department paycheck. He told the inspector general that he “did not consider himself an agency officer and believed he had ‘no limitations’ as far as what he could or could not do.” C.I.A. lawyers said that officials on unpaid leave who are “acting in a personal capacity and not subject to C.I.A. direction” are not constrained by the law barring the agency from domestic security functions, the report said.

Another C.I.A. analyst was detailed to the Police Department in early 2008 and remained on the agency’s payroll. From about February to April 2008, he told the inspector general he had received daily files, including the police intelligence division’s investigative reports “that he believed were unfiltered.”

That meant they had not been prescreened to remove information unrelated to foreign intelligence information, like evidence of domestic criminal activity. Later, the report says, the system was changed and police analysts gave him printouts of only those reports deemed to have potential foreign-intelligence information — about 10 to 12 a day.

Still, a former Police Department intelligence analyst who now works for the C.I.A.’s National Clandestine Service maintained that the embedded C.I.A. official had not had “unrestricted or unfiltered access” to the reports. The inspector general did not clear up the discrepancy.

Meanwhile, the Police Department sent a detective to the C.I.A. from October 2008 to November 2009 to “receive agency operational training to enhance the capability” of its intelligence division’s counterterrorism efforts in the metropolitan area.

Two other agency officials also worked for a period at the Police Department. One “spent considerable time and effort trying to help N.Y.P.D. improve its volatile relationship with the local F.B.I.,” and the report said senior agency officials expressed concern that the arrangement had “placed the agency in the middle of a contentious relationship.”

“The revelation of these issues,” Mr. Buckley wrote, “leads me to conclude that the risks associated with the Agency’s relationship with the N.Y.P.D. were not fully considered and that there was inadequate direction and control by the agency managers responsible for the relationship.”

June 26, 2013
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Find this story at 26 June 2013

© 2013 The New York Times Company

The Central Intelligence Agency played an important role in the arrest in 1962 of Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress leader who was jailed for nearly 28 years before his release four months ago, a news report says.

The intelligence service, using an agent inside the African National Congress, provided South African security officials with precise information about Mr. Mandela’s activities that enabled the police to arrest him, said the account by the Cox News Service.

The report, scheduled for publication on Sunday, quoted an unidentified retired official who said that a senior C.I.A. officer told him shortly after Mr. Mandela’s arrest: ”We have turned Mandela over to the South African Security branch. We gave them every detail, what he would be wearing, the time of day, just where he would be.”

Mark Mansfield, a spokesman for the agency, declined to comment on the news-service report. ”As a matter of policy, we do not discuss allegations of intelligence activities,” he said.

Protecting Pretoria’s Rule

Reports that American intelligence tipped off the South African officials who arrested Mr. Mandela have circulated for years. Newsweek reported in February that the agency was believed to have been involved.

Mr. Mandela is scheduled to visit the United States beginning June 20 for a five-city tour that will include talks with President Bush and a speech before a joint meeting of Congress.

The news-service report said that at the time of Mr. Mandela’s arrest in August 1962, the C.I.A. devoted more resources to penetrating the activities of nationalist groups like the African National Congress than did South Africa’s then-fledgling security service.

The account said the American intelligence agency was willing to assist in the apprehension of Mr. Mandela because it was concerned that a successful nationalist movement threatened a friendly South African Govenment. Expansion of such movements outside South Africa’s borders, the agency feared, would jeopardize the stability of other African states, the account said.

Arrest at a Roadblock

A retired South African intelligence official, Gerard Ludi, was quoted in the report as saying that at the time of Mr. Mandela’s capture, the C.I.A. had put an undercover agent into the inner circle of the African National Congress group in Durban.

That agent provided the intelligence service with detailed accounts of the organization’s activities, including information on the whereabouts of Mr. Mandela, then being sought as a fugitive for his anti-apartheid activities.

The morning after a secret dinner party with other congress members in Durban, Mr. Mandela, dressed as a chauffeur, ran into a roadblock. He was immediately recognized and arrested.

The retired official said that because of concern over the propriety of the C.I.A.’s actions in the Mandela case, ”higher authorities” required that the State Department approve any similar operations in the future. The report said the State Department refused on at least three occasions to allow the agency to provide South African officials with information about other dissidents.

By DAVID JOHNSTON, Special to The New York Times
Published: June 10, 1990

Find this story at 10 June 1990

Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company

WASHINGTON — For nearly 28 years the U.S. government has harbored an increasingly embarrassing secret: A CIA tip to South African intelligence agents led to the arrest that put black nationalist leader Nelson Mandela in prison for most of his adult life.

But now, with Mandela en route to the U.S. to a hero`s welcome, a former U.S. official has revealed that he has known of the CIA role since Mandela was seized by agents of the South African police special branch on Aug. 5, 1962.

The former official, now retired, said that within hours after Mandela`s arrest Paul Eckel, then a senior CIA operative, walked into his office and said approximately these words: “We have turned Mandela over to the South African security branch. We gave them every detail, what he would be wearing, the time of day, just where he would be. They have picked him up. It is one of our greatest coups.“

With Mandela out of prison, the retired official decided there is no longer a valid reason for secrecy. He called the American role in the affair

“one of the most shameful, utterly horrid“ byproducts of the Cold War struggle between Moscow and Washington for influence in the Third World.

Asked about the tip to South African authorities, CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said: “Our policy is not to comment on such allegations.“

Reports that American intelligence tipped off the South African officials who arrested Mandela have circulated for years. Newsweek reported in February that the agency was believed to have been involved.

Mandela, now 71, arrives in the United States June 20 as part of an international tour to bolster the anti-apartheid movement. The deputy African National Congress president, widely regarded as the world`s pre-eminent political prisoner when he finally was released in February, is due to be honored by a ticker-tape Broadway parade and to address a joint session of Congress.

But in 1962 the CIA`s covert branch saw the African National Congress as a threat to the stability of a friendly South African government. At the time, that government not only had just signed a military cooperation agreement with the United States but also served as an important source of uranium.

The CIA knew of Mandela`s whereabouts because it had put an undercover agent into the inner circle of the African National Congress group in Durban, according to Gerard Ludi, a retired South African intelligence official.

Mandela was being sought as a fugitive for his anti-apartheid activities. The morning after a secret dinner party with other congress members in Durban, Mandela, dressed as a chauffeur, ran into a roadblock. He was immediately recognized and arrested.

June 10, 1990|By Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel, Cox News Service.

Find this story at 10 June 1990

© www.chicagotribune.com

Update: Watch our interview on Assata Shakur with her attorney Lennox Hines & scholar Angela Davis.

The FBI added Assata Shakur to its Most Wanted Terrorist List today. In addition, the state of New Jersey announced it was adding $1 million to the FBI’s $1 million reward for her capture. Shakur becomes the first woman ever to make the list and only the second domestic terrorist to be added to the list.

Assata Shakur, the former Joanne Chesimard, was a member of the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army. She was convicted in the May 2, 1973 killing of a New Jersey police officer during a shoot-out that left one of her fellow activists dead. She was shot twice by police during the incident. In 1979, she managed to escape from jail. Shakur fled to Cuba where she received political asylum. She once wrote, “I am a 20th century escaped slave. Because of government persecution, I was left with no other choice than to flee from the political repression, racism and violence that dominate the U.S. government’s policy towards people of color.”

In 1998, Democracy Now! aired Shakur reading an open letter to Pope John Paul II during his trip to Cuba. She wrote the message after New Jersey state troopers sent the Pope a letter asking him to call for her extradition.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
I hope this letter finds you in good health, in good disposition, and enveloped with the spirit of goodness. I must confess that it had never occurred to me before to write you, and I find myself overwhelmed and moved to have this opportunity.

Although circumstances have compelled me to reach out to you, I am glad to have this occasion to try and cross the boundaries that would otherwise tend to separate us.

I understand that the New Jersey State Police have written to you and asked you to intervene and to help facilitate my extradition back to the United States. I believe that their request is unprecedented in history. Since they have refused to make their letter to you public, although they have not hesitated to publicize their request, I am completely uninformed as to the accusations they are making against me. Why, I wonder, do I warrant such attention? What do I represent that is such a threat?

Please let me take a moment to tell you about myself. My name is Assata Shakur and I was born and raised in the United States. I am a descendant of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the Americas as slaves. I spent my early childhood in the racist segregated South. I later moved to the northern part of the country, where I realized that Black people were equally victimized by racism and oppression.

I grew up and became a political activist, participating in student struggles, the anti-war movement, and, most of all, in the movement for the liberation of African Americans in the United States. I later joined the Black Panther Party, an organization that was targeted by the COINTELPRO program, a program that was set up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to eliminate all political opposition to the U.S. government’s policies, to destroy the Black Liberation Movement in the United States, to discredit activists and to eliminate potential leaders.

Under the COINTELPRO program, many political activists were harassed, imprisoned, murdered or otherwise neutralized. As a result of being targeted by COINTELPRO, I, like many other young people, was faced with the threat of prison, underground, exile or death. The FBI, with the help of local police agencies, systematically fed false accusations and fake news articles to the press accusing me and other activists of crimes we did not commit. Although in my case the charges were eventually dropped or I was eventually acquitted, the national and local police agencies created a situation where, based on their false accusations against me, any police officer could shoot me on sight. It was not until the Freedom of Information Act was passed in the mid-’70s that we began to see the scope of the United States government’s persecution of political activists.

At this point, I think that it is important to make one thing very clear. I have advocated and I still advocate revolutionary changes in the structure and in the principles that govern the United States. I advocate self-determination for my people and for all oppressed inside the United States. I advocate an end to capitalist exploitation, the abolition of racist policies, the eradication of sexism, and the elimination of political repression. If that is a crime, then I am totally guilty.

To make a long story short, I was captured in New Jersey in 1973, after being shot with both arms held in the air, and then shot again from the back. I was left on the ground to die and when I did not, I was taken to a local hospital where I was threatened, beaten and tortured. In 1977 I was convicted in a trial that can only be described as a legal lynching.

In 1979 I was able to escape with the aid of some of my fellow comrades. I saw this as a necessary step, not only because I was innocent of the charges against me, but because I knew that in the racist legal system in the United States I would receive no justice. I was also afraid that I would be murdered in prison. I later arrived in Cuba where I am currently living in exile as a political refugee.

The New Jersey State Police and other law enforcement officials say they want to see me brought to “justice.” But I would like to know what they mean by “justice.” Is torture justice? I was kept in solitary confinement for more than two years, mostly in men’s prisons. Is that justice? My lawyers were threatened with imprisonment and imprisoned. Is that justice? I was tried by an all-white jury, without even the pretext of impartiality, and then sentenced to life in prison plus 33 years. Is that justice?

Let me emphasize that justice for me is not the issue I am addressing here; it is justice for my people that is at stake. When my people receive justice, I am sure that I will receive it, too. I know that Your Holiness will reach your own conclusions, but I feel compelled to present the circumstances surrounding the application of so-called “justice” in New Jersey. I am not the first or the last person to be victimized by the New Jersey system of “justice.” The New Jersey State Police are infamous for their racism and brutality. Many legal actions have been filed against them and just recently, in a class action legal proceeding, the New Jersey State Police were found guilty of having an, quote, “officially sanctioned, de facto policy of targeting minorities for investigation and arrest,” unquote.

Although New Jersey’s population is more than 78 percent white, more than 75 percent of the prison population is made up of Blacks and Latinos. Eighty percent of women in New Jersey prisons are women of color. There are 15 people on death row in the state and seven of them are Black. A 1987 study found that New Jersey prosecutors sought the death penalty in 50 percent of cases involving a Black defendant and a white victim, but only 28 percent of cases involving a Black defendant and a Black victim.

Unfortunately, the situation in New Jersey is not unique, but reflects the racism that permeates the entire country. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. There are more than 1.7 million people in U.S. prisons. This number does not include the more than 500,000 people in city and county jails, nor does it include the alarming number of children in juvenile institutions. The vast majority of those behind bars are people of color and virtually all of those behind bars are poor. The result of this reality is devastating. One third of Black men between the ages of 20 and 29 are either in prison or under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.

Prisons are big business in the United States, and the building, running, and supplying of prisons has become the fastest growing industry in the country. Factories are being moved into the prisons and prisoners are being forced to work for slave wages. This super-exploitation of human beings has meant the institutionalization of a new form of slavery. Those who cannot find work on the streets are forced to work in prison.

Not only are the prisons used as instruments of economic exploitation, they also serve as instruments of political repression. There are more than 100 political prisoners in the United States. They are African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Native Americans, Asians, and progressive white people who oppose the policies of the United States government. Many of those targeted by the COINTELPRO program have been in prison since the early 1970s.
Although the situation in the prisons is an indication of human rights violations inside the United States, there are other, more deadly indicators.

There are currently 3,365 people now on death row, and more than 50 percent of those awaiting death are people of color. Black people make up only 13 percent of the population, but we make up 41.01 percent of persons who have received the death penalty. The number of state assassinations has increased drastically. In 1997 alone, 71 people were executed.

A special rapporteur appointed by the United Nations organization found serious human rights violations in the United States, especially those related to the death penalty. According to his findings, people who were mentally ill were sentenced to death, people with severe mental and learning disabilities, as well as minors under 18. Serious racial bias was found on the part of judges and prosecutors. Specifically mentioned in the report was the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the only political prisoner on death row, who was sentenced to death because of his political beliefs and because of his work as a journalist, exposing police brutality in the city of Philadelphia.

I believe that some people spell God with one “O” while others spell it with two. What we call God is unimportant, as long as we do God’s work. There are those who want to see God’s wrath fall on the oppressed and not on the oppressors. I believe that the time has ended when slavery, colonialism, and oppression can be carried out in the name of religion. It was in the dungeons of prison that I felt the presence of God up close, and it has been my belief in God, and in the goodness of human beings that has helped me to survive. I am not ashamed of having been in prison, and I am certainly not ashamed of having been a political prisoner. I believe that Jesus was a political prisoner who was executed because he fought against the evils of the Roman Empire, because he fought against the greed of the money changers in the temple, because he fought against the sins and injustices of his time. As a true child of God, Jesus spoke up for the poor, for the meek, for the sick, and the oppressed. The early Christians were thrown into lions’ dens. I will try and follow the example of so many who have stood up in the face of overwhelming oppression.

I am not writing to ask you to intercede on my behalf. I ask nothing for myself. I only ask you to examine the social reality of the United States and to speak out against the human rights violations that are taking place.

On this day, the birthday of Martin Luther King, I am reminded of all those who gave their lives for freedom. Most of the people who live on this planet are still not free. I ask only that you continue to work and pray to end oppression and political repression. It is my heartfelt belief that all the people on this earth deserve justice: social justice, political justice, and economic justice. I believe it is the only way we will ever achieve peace and prosperity on this earth. I hope that you enjoy your visit to Cuba. This is not a country that is rich in material wealth, but it is a country that is rich in human wealth, spiritual wealth and moral wealth.

Respectfully yours,
Assata Shakur
Havana, Cuba

Find this story at 2 May 2013

Assata Shakur, an ex member of the Black Panthers who escaped from prison and fled to Cuba in 1979, has officially been added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list, making her the first woman ever. Shakur — born JoAnne Byron (married name Chesimard) — was a member of the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army when she was convicted of killing a New Jersey police officer in 1973. In 1979, she managed to escape from prison and fled to Cuba, where she was granted political asylum and has been ever since. Since 2005, the FBI has classified her as a domestic terrorist and has offered a $1 million reward for her capture. Yesterday, the 40-year anniversary of the New Jersey Turnpike shootout, they upgraded her to the 10 Most Wanted List.

There’s a lot to read and sift through in regards to Shakur’s involvement in that incident and the various other crimes of which she was accused and convicted. Shakur has long maintained her innocence in regards to the death of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on May 2, 1973, and during her trial, her defense team presented testimony from medical experts that asserted the wounds Shakur obtained during the shootout — she was shot in both arms and the shoulder — would have made it impossible for her to fire upon Foerster. Additionally, during the trial, one of the prosecution’s primary witnesses, the other officer present (and wounded) at the shootout, Trooper James Harper, admitted he’d lied in all three of his initial statements when he said Shakur shot and killed Foerster and also shot at him. He admitted on the stand that he had in fact never seen Shakur with a gun and that she did not shoot at him. There was also no gunpowder found on Shakur’s fingers. (Shakur testified that after she was shot by Foerster, she took cover for the duration of the gunfight.) In the end, the all-white, 15-person jury, five of whom had personal ties to state troopers, convicted Shakur of all eight counts (two murder charges and six assault charges). She was sentenced to 26 to 33 years in prison.

Of her conviction and eventual escape to Cuba, Shakur once wrote, ”I am a 20th century escaped slave. Because of government persecution, I was left with no other choice than to flee from the political repression, racism and violence that dominate the U.S. government’s policy towards people of color.” There have been numerous attempts to have her extradited, including an appeal to Pope John Paul II in 1998. In response, Shakur wrote a letter to the Pope which you can read here.

Amelia McDonell-ParryMay 3, 2013

Find this story at 3 May 2013

© The Frisky is a member of Spin Entertainment, a division of SpinMedia

The internet is being snooped on and CCTV is everywhere. How did we come to accept that this is just the way things are?

These days we are all supects, or at least consumers. Photograph: Alamy

America controls the sky. Fear of what America might do can make countries divert planes – all because Edward Snowden might be on one.

Owning the sky has somehow got to me more than controlling the internet. Maybe because I am a simpleton and sometimes can only process what I can see – the actual sky, rather than invisible cyberspace in which data blips through fibre-optic cables.

Thus the everyday internet remains opaque to all but geeks. And that’s where I think I have got it wrong. My first reaction to the Prism leaks was to make stupid jokes: Spies spy? Who knew? The fact that Snowden looked as if he came from central casting didn’t help. Nor did the involvement of Julian Assange, a cult leader who should be in Sweden instead of a cupboard in an embassy.

What I failed to grasp, though, was quite how much I had already surrendered my liberty, not just personally but my political ideals about what liberty means. I simply took for granted that everyone can see everything and laughed at the idea that Obama will be looking at my pictures of a cat dressed as a lobster. I was resigned to the fact that some random FBI merchant will wonder at the inane and profane nature of my drunken tweets.

Slowly but surely, The Lives of Others have become ours. CCTV cameras everywhere watch us, so we no longer watch out for each other. Public space is controlled. Of course, much CCTV footage is never seen and often useless. But we don’t need the panopticon once we have built one in our own minds. We are all suspects.

Or at least consumers. iTunes thinks I might like Bowie; Amazon thinks I want a compact tumble dryer. Really? Facebook seems to think I want to date men in uniform. I revel in the fact that the algorithms get it as wrong as the man who knocks on my door selling fish out of a van. “And not just fish,” as he sometimes says mysteriously.

But how did I come to accept that all this data gathered about me is just the way it is? Wasn’t I once interested in civil liberties? Indeed, weren’t the Lib Dems? Didn’t freedom somehow incorporate the idea of individual privacy? When the state monitored all its citizens as though they were suspects – whether in East Germany or North Korea – we called it authoritarianism. Now we think it is what keeps us safe.

In 2009 I sat on a panel with Vince Cable at the cross-party Convention on Modern Liberty. Cable told us that a recession could provide the preconditions for fascism. Gosh, I thought, that’s a bit strong. Then the recession hit and austerity became the narrative that subsumed all debates about freedom. No one poor is free, and it is no coincidence that the poor are the most snooped on of all.

What Snowden, who is no spy, has revealed is the nature of the game: that surveillance is a huge private industry; that almost full control of the internet has been achieved already; that politicians here and in the US have totally acquiesced to industrial-scale snooping. There is a generation now made up of people who will never have had a private conversation online or by phone. These are my children. And should they or anyone else want to organise against the powers that be, they will be traceable. We have sleepwalked into this because liberty remains such an alien concept, still. But the US has the fourth amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.”

It has been violated. Bradley Manning is in prison, Guantánamo remains open, CIA agents who spoke out about waterboarding are banged up. And there are other kinds of whistleblowers who conveniently kill themselves. The letter from Daniel Somers, who served in Iraq, says he was made to do things he could not live with. He described his suicide as a mercy killing and reminded us that 22 veterans kill themselves every day. This is not whistleblowing. It is screaming into a void.

But we remain passive while other European countries are angry at what Snowden has told us. We maintain the special relationship. For Snowden, the truth will not set him free, it will imprison him for ever. We now debate whether we should exchange liberty for security, but it is too late. As John Locke said: “As soon as men decide all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy.” He could have been talking about our passivity.

When did you surrender your freedom to communicate, something that was yours and yours alone, whether an email to a lover or a picture of your child? Ask yourself, do you feel safer now you know that you have no secrets? Now, the intimacies that are of no import to anyone but you have been subject to virtual extraordinary rendition. Because, fundamentally, your government does not trust you. Why therefore should you trust it?

Suzanne Moore
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 July 2013 20.00 BST

Find this story at 3 July 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON — Intelligence officials refer to Edward J. Snowden’s job as a National Security Agency contractor as “systems administrator” — a bland name for the specialists who keep the computers humming. But his last job before leaking classified documents about N.S.A. surveillance, he told the news organization The Guardian, was actually “infrastructure analyst.”

It is a title that officials have carefully avoided mentioning, perhaps for fear of inviting questions about the agency’s aggressive tactics: an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world.

That assignment helps explain how Mr. Snowden got hold of documents laying bare the top-secret capabilities of the nation’s largest intelligence agency, setting off a far-reaching political and diplomatic crisis for the Obama administration.

Even as some members of Congress have challenged the N.S.A.’s collection of logs of nearly every phone call Americans make, European officials furiously protested on Sunday after Mr. Snowden’s disclosure that the N.S.A. has bugged European Union offices in Washington and Brussels and, with its British counterpart, has tapped the Continent’s major fiber-optic communications cables.

On Sunday evening, The Guardian posted an article saying documents leaked by Mr. Snowden show 38 embassies and missions on a list of United States electronic surveillance targets. Some of those offices belong to allies like France, Italy, Japan and Mexico, The Guardian said.

Mr. Snowden, who planned his leaks for at least a year, has said he took the infrastructure analyst position with Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii in March, evidently taking a pay cut, to gain access to a fresh supply of documents.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the N.S.A. hacked,” he told The South China Morning Post before leaving Hong Kong a week ago for Moscow, where he has been in limbo in the transit area of Sheremetyevo airport. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

A close reading of Mr. Snowden’s documents shows the extent to which the eavesdropping agency now has two new roles: It is a data cruncher, with an appetite to sweep up, and hold for years, a staggering variety of information. And it is an intelligence force armed with cyberweapons, assigned not just to monitor foreign computers but also, if necessary, to attack.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the documents suggest, the N.S.A. decided it was too risky to wait for leads on specific suspects before going after relevant phone and Internet records. So it followed the example of the hoarder who justifies stacks of paper because someday, somehow, a single page could prove vitally important.

The agency began amassing databases of “metadata” — logs of all telephone calls collected from the major carriers and similar data on e-mail traffic. The e-mail program was halted in 2011, though it appears possible that the same data is now gathered in some other way.

The documents show that America’s phone and Internet companies grew leery of N.S.A. demands as the years passed after 9/11, fearing that customers might be angry to find out their records were shared with the government. More and more, the companies’ lawyers insisted on legal orders to compel them to comply.

So the N.S.A. came up with a solution: store the data itself. That is evidently what gave birth to a vast data storage center that the N.S.A. is building in Utah, exploiting the declining cost of storage and the advance of sophisticated search software.

Those huge databases were once called “bit buckets” in the industry — collections of electronic bits waiting to be sifted. “They park stuff in storage in the hopes that they will eventually have time to get to it,” said James Lewis, a cyberexpert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “or that they’ll find something that they need to go back and look for in the masses of data.” But, he added, “most of it sits and is never looked at by anyone.”

Indeed, an obscure passage in one of the Snowden documents — rules for collecting Internet data that the Obama administration wrote in secret in 2009 and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved — suggested that the government was concerned about its ability to process all the data it was collecting. So it got the court to approve an exception allowing the government to hold on to that information if it could not keep up. The rules said that “the communications that may be retained” for up to five years “include electronic communications acquired because of the limitation on the N.S.A.’s ability to filter communications.”

As one private expert who sometimes advises the N.S.A. on this technology put it: “This means that if you can’t desalinate all the seawater at once, you get to hold on to the ocean until you figure it out.”

Collecting that ocean requires the brazen efforts of tens of thousands of technicians like Mr. Snowden. On Thursday, President Obama played down Mr. Snowden’s importance, perhaps concerned that the manhunt was itself damaging the image and diplomatic relations of the United States. “No, I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” the president said during a stop in Senegal.

Mr. Obama presumably meant the term to be dismissive, suggesting that Mr. Snowden (who turned 30 on June 21) was a young computer delinquent. But as an N.S.A. infrastructure analyst, Mr. Snowden was, in a sense, part of the United States’ biggest and most skilled team of hackers.

The N.S.A., Mr. Snowden’s documents show, has worked with its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, to tap into hundreds of fiber-optic cables that cross the Atlantic or go on into Europe, with the N.S.A. helping sort the data. The disclosure revived old concerns that the British might be helping the N.S.A. evade American privacy protections, an accusation that American officials flatly deny.

And a secret presidential directive on cyberactivities unveiled by Mr. Snowden — discussing the primary new task of the N.S.A. and its military counterpart, Cyber Command — makes clear that when the agency’s technicians probe for vulnerabilities to collect intelligence, they also study foreign communications and computer systems to identify potential targets for a future cyberwar.

Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the computers’ hard drives or shut down the phone system.

Mr. Snowden’s collection of pilfered N.S.A. documents has cast an awkward light on officials’ past assurances to Congress and the public about their concern about Americans’ privacy.

It was only in March that James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told a Senate committee that the N.S.A. did not collect data on millions of Americans. Mr. Snowden’s records forced Mr. Clapper to backtrack, admitting his statement was false.

Last week, two senators challenged even the accuracy of a fact sheet prepared by the N.S.A. to counter Mr. Snowden’s claims about the phone data and Internet collection programs. Agency officials did not defend themselves; the fact sheet simply disappeared, without explanation, from the agency’s Web site.

Newly disclosed slides from an N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation on the agency’s Prism database of Internet data, posted on Saturday by The Washington Post, reveal that the F.B.I. plays a role as middleman between the N.S.A. and Internet companies like Google and Yahoo. The arrangement provides the N.S.A. with a defense, however nominal, against claims that it spies on United States soil.

Even in the unaccustomed spotlight after the N.S.A. revelations, intelligence officials have concealed more than they have revealed in careful comments, fearful of alerting potential eavesdropping targets to agency methods. They invariably discuss the N.S.A.’s role in preventing terrorist attacks, an agency priority that the public can easily grasp.

In fact, as Mr. Snowden’s documents have shown, the omnivorous agency’s operations range far beyond terrorism, targeting foreigners of any conceivable interest. British eavesdroppers working with the N.S.A. penetrated London meetings of the Group of 20 industrialized nations, partly by luring delegates to fake Internet cafes, and the N.S.A. hacked into computers at Chinese universities.

At Fort Meade, on the N.S.A.’s heavily guarded campus off the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland, such disclosures are seen as devastating tip-offs to targets. The disclosure in Mr. Snowden’s documents that Skype is cooperating with orders to turn over data to the N.S.A., for example, undermined a widespread myth that the agency could not intercept the voice-over-Internet service. Warned, in effect, by Mr. Snowden, foreign officials, drug cartel leaders and terrorists may become far more careful about how, and how much, they communicate.

“We’re seeing indications that several terrorist groups are changing their communications behavior based on these disclosures,” one intelligence official said last week, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We’re going to miss tidbits that could be useful in stopping the next plot.”

Mr. Snowden’s breach is an unplanned test of the N.S.A.’s decades-old conviction that it can operate effectively only under absolute secrecy. The agency is conducting a damage assessment — a routine step after major leaks — but the assessment itself is likely to remain classified.

The N.S.A.’s assessment of Mr. Snowden’s case will likely also consider what has become, for intelligence officials, a chilling consideration: there are thousands of people of his generation and computer skills at the agency, hired in recent years to keep up with the communications boom.

The officials fear that some of them, like young computer aficionados outside the agency, might share Mr. Snowden’s professed libertarian streak and skepticism of the government’s secret power. Intelligence bosses are keeping a closer eye on them now, hoping that there is not another self-appointed whistle-blower in their midst.

June 30, 2013
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID E. SANGER

Find this story at 30 June 2013

© 2013 The New York Times Company

Postscript ||: Our Government has No Right to Hide Its Actions

This is a guest post by Jesse Stavis, another one of the students at the NSA session. The first postscript by me (Madiha) available below.

My name is Jesse Stavis. I’m a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I was the male student in the recording. Madiha has graciously invited me to share some final thoughts on our confrontation with the NSA. I’ll try to keep this brief:

1. I have never been involved in anything that’s come anywhere close to receiving the exposure that this incident has. I will admit that it was exciting to see this story go quasi-viral. The fact that comments that were made in a room with perhaps twenty audience members eventually reached hundreds of thousands of people speaks to the power that the internet has as a tool for political and social advocacy. This should remind us of why it’s so important to protect the openness of the internet and the privacy of our communications on it.

2. A few days after this story broke, my feelings of excitement and pride in what we had accomplished gave way to a lingering feeling of depression. To put it bluntly, this should not have been a big story. The big story should have been about congressional representatives asking tough questions of the people at the top levels of the NSA. We should have been reading about Lt. Gen. Clapper being investigated for perjury. The fact that a few graduate students peppering recruiters with tough questions received so much attention speaks to the utterly dysfunctional condition of our political system as a whole and of the Democratic Party in particular.

3. While most people have been supportive of what we did, a number of commenters have suggested that we were wrong to confront low-level employees who were just doing their job. I want to make one thing clear: These were not low-level employees. They were what I would describe as upper mid-level managers. They told us that they had a combined fifty-five years of experience at the NSA. Without the support and consent of people like this, the surveillance machine could not exist. I don’t think that they are stupid people or evil people. I do think that they are people who have abdicated their moral agency and thus allowed for something very scary and very evil to come into existence. It’s our responsibility as educated citizens to remind these people that they do have the power to effect real change.

4. A number of people have written that they wished that there were a video recording of this event. I’m not so sure that they would have liked what they would have seen. They would have seen three people aggressively challenging the recruiters while fifteen or twenty other people who were actually considering working at the NSA sat stone-faced and bored, waiting for this unfortunate interruption to end. They would have seen the high school teacher sitting next to me muttering through a clenched jaw about how indescribably rude we were being. They would have seen just how much more we have to accomplish when it comes to convincing our fellow citizens that our government has no right to hide its actions from its citizens.

5. Finally, at the risk of stating the obvious, I want to make it clear that I take very little credit for anything that was accomplished at that meeting. Without someone as brave, informed, and articulate as Madiha Tahir, this wouldn’t have been a story at all. I am deeply, deeply impressed by her, and I hope that you are too.
Tagged government, nsa, prism, surveillance

Jul 07 2013
32 Comments
Multitudes, The Terror Wars
Postscript: The Present through a PRISM

See also guest post by Jesse Stavis

Since I posted about our engagement with NSA recruiters who were visiting the campus at the Univ of

Good Muslim anyone? (Internal flap of NSA brochure)

Wisconsin, I’ve been inundated with hundreds upon hundreds of tweets, emails and messages from people, both Americans, but also folks from Germany, the UK, France, Pakistan and elsewhere. They have been overwhelmingly positive, heartfelt messages (with a few nastier comments thrown in, but I imagine that is par for the course). I’ve tried my best to keep up and respond to, and/or acknowledge the messages in some way, but once again: Thank you for all of your messages of support.

It has been inspiring for us to hear from all of you!

When we posed our questions to the NSA recruiters, we did not expect to go viral. But some time soon after tweeting out my post, my blog crashed. So did the blog PrivacySOS (follow @onekade!) who had posted about it. By next afternoon, Huffpo had picked it up. Numerous blogs, local sites and news sites also reported the story including: Business Insider, The Guardian, Firedoglake, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (the largest German-language daily in Germany), WORT Radio, NBC15 (Wisconsin’s local channel which also features Jesse Stavis @tolstoved. Means one who studies Tolstoy), one of the other students who spoke), WeAct Radio, Isthmus, Wisconsin Reporter, Wonkette, ActivistPost, Daily Kos and Truthdig, among others. There have been some Youtube videos posted as well.

I’ve made the audio downloadable as per several requests.

Here, I want to add some things I left out in my initial post (because I wasn’t expecting so many people to read it), make some corrections, and finally make some notes on a few things I thought were interesting:

1. The recruiters in question were seasoned employees of the NSA, not newbies. They told us that together, they had 55 years of experience with the NSA. The female recruiter worked on South Asia and implied that she was in a senior position in that office. That was the impression others I’ve spoken with also had. The male recruiter worked on China and Korea.

2. Anybody can be an “adversary.” That means foreign governments, allies, and American citizens. Anyone can become an adversary at any time as far as the American government is concerned. That means OWS anarchists, socialists, activists and leftists of various stripes, environmentalists or just stupid kids. That means Anwar al-Awlaki because his opinions were reprehensible, or his teenage son –also an American citizen– who was killed in a drone attack just because, or Tarek Mehanna, or Fahad Hashmi, or the Muslim Students’ Association, or Muslims generally, or me or you. As Atlantic Wire reported last month,

And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq’s Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, “Hey, check this out… there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out.” Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. “It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy.’”

In a word: creepy. But, what’s more worrisome to me than the eavesdropping on the pillow talk of American troops is the differential burden that the surveillance state levies on the marginalized. For example, it is not accidental that the names on my little list above are largely Muslim. When bureaucrats or the government or the police are managing large populations, they narrow down categories of presumed suspects through racial profiling. That is why stop-and-frisk disproportionately

Sent to me by dminkler.com

affects African-Americans and Latinos. And, it’s the same reason why –when hunting for ‘terrorists’– American security forces obsess over Islam, and the mainstream media tends to present Muslims as the face of terror even though white hate groups are on the rise. In fact in 2009, conservatives so heavily criticized the Department of Homeland Security when it “reported that white supremacy is the US’s biggest threat for domestic terror” (ThinkProgress) that Janet Napolitano ended up withdrawing its report.

So, there’s a racial politics to the surveillance state. The marginalized, poor and non-white are likely to bear the brunt of the state’s violence. But, in the end, it affects the entire social space. First of all, it has a chilling effect on dissent, particularly in these communities.

Secondly, for the police or the FBI or the NSA or the drones to come for some of us requires that the rest of us agree or at least, remain silent. I think that silence is produced: through the jingoism of television whether it’s the evening news or shows like NCIS, 24, or Homeland as well as through attacks on education, research and dissent. Finally, there are all the smaller ways of disciplining people into silence, things we even do to each other. You are told it’s rude to ask questions. This is not the right time. This is not the right space. Those are not the right people. Shut up. Shut up. SHUT UP.

That kind of social space kills independent thought. It produces thinking that is vehemently opposed to asking questions of NSA recruiters and by extension, the state. Such thinking is more angered by the whistle-blowing than what it reveals. To paraphrase a dead French guy badly, the surveillance state has to change people/populations into the kind of group that basically remains silent. That is what is needed first in order to make the unthinkable possible and finally, normal.

This is why, when they come for some of us, they actually come for all of us.

Therefore, a critical response can only succeed if it is able to understand the entire structure as a whole, that is, as long as we continue to draw distinctions between people that ought to be surveilled and those that should not be surveilled, we will fail. The point –and the real test– is learning to stand in solidarity with people who are not like you or me or us.

3. “The globe is our playground.” A little nugget of honesty about the worldview of the intelligence and military community.

4. They are just doing their jobs. I’m not sure why this is a defense. It didn’t work at Nuremberg. And, it shouldn’t work now. This is not to compare what is happening now as somehow equal to or better or worse than the German holocaust, but to underscore a philosophical point Hannah Arendt made about the nature of modern evil: It’s banal. That means it hasn’t got a pitchfork or horns sprouting out of its head. Rather, it is thousands of ordinary people just doing their jobs.

The question of whether they are “good” people and love their families or “bad” people is irrelevant here. The routinization of such work into small tasks turns the victims of that work into an

Sent to me by dminkler.com

abstraction or a mathematical problem for the people-just-doing-their-jobs. (Thanks to a commenter at the Guardian, the prior link is to a discussion of how the NSA reconfigures issues into an abstract mathematical problem that is then handed over to its mathematicians –none of whom actually know the real-world ‘problem’ that they are working on or to what end their mathematical solutions will be applied. For another instance, take the discussion of drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In the mainstream media, it is a discussion that lacks imagination and has been reduced to counting up the dead and categorizing them as “civilian” or “militant” –effectively turning it into a numbers problem: are we killing more of the “bad” ones than the “good” ones or vice versa? Needless to say, this is a terrible, even a horrifying kind of question.)

So, some people go on just doing their jobs and other people go on not asking questions for fear of appearing rude (Jesse talks about how the high school teacher sitting next to him during the session kept muttering about our ‘rudeness’), enraged, irrational, naive. This is how, together, we build monsters.

What has struck me about the anti-war movement in America in these last few years –perhaps it is different elsewhere and perhaps it was different before– is generally how polite it has been. How ironic to chant, “Whose streets! Our streets!” while politely walking into pens and free speech zones. How strange to demand an end to the war while politely conceding to the demands of the NYPD that protesters not use Central Park, that they only march on these streets and not those streets so that order can be maintained, so that things can carry on as if there were no protest at all. I am not arguing for blind rage, but I think anger –articulate, politically engaged, critically minded anger that holds the line– can be a virtue in these times.

5. Edward Snowden should’ve stuck it out instead of “running away.” This is interesting to me because I think this speaks to a kind of Christian imaginary: the hero as martyr, like Jesus, who should hang on the cross. That is apparently what will redeem the worth of these revelations. I am not saying that the people who make this claim are Christian; I am only observing that long after secularization, forms of Christian thought and habit hang around, and I think this is one of them. It is a very specific kind of typology for a hero, and one that only makes sense in a context where people (whether they be actually Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or atheists or whatever) are habituated to the idea of Jesus’ martyrdom for our redemption. It’s out there in the social space. Hell, think about the end of Harry Potter.

6. To the people telling me to grow up, I’m 5 ft 1.75 inches, and I’m pretty sure I’m not growing any taller. And to those wondering if I’m a “foreigner,” well, if I am one, so are you. I do get how my name trips up your black-and-white world though. If it helps, you can call me Maddie.

Some links I thought were worth sharing:

Prism Break

Restore the Fourth

Mass Surveillance in America: A Timeline

Let’s not forget about the corporations who surveil us too.

PRISM by the numbers

Security Data-Mining and Other Forms of Witchcraft

Finally, once again thank you so much for your messages. It has been inspiring for us.

Onwards!
Tagged europe, muslims, nsa, race, secrecy, surveillance

Jul 02 2013
336 Comments
Multitudes, The Terror Wars
The NSA Comes Recruiting

Some students and I had an exchange with NSA recruiters today. The audio and a rough transcript below.

The NSA came to recruit at a language program at the University of Wisconsin where I am spending my summer learning a language. Two recruiters, a redhead who looked more like a middle-aged mother (listed as “NSA_F” below) and a portly, balding man (“NSA_M”), began to go through slides explaining the NSA and its work.

I had intended to go simply to hear how the NSA is recruiting at a moment when it’s facing severe challenges, what with the Edward Snowden and all. Dismayingly, however, a local high school teacher had thought it was good to bring 5 of his students to the session. They were smartly dressed, some of them even wearing ties as if there might be a job interview, young faces in a classroom of graduate students. They sat across from me at the roundtable. It was really their presence that goaded me–and I think a couple of other students–into an interaction with the recruiters.

Roughly half an hour into the session, the exchange below began. I began by asking them how they understood the term “adversary” since the surveillance seems to be far beyond those the American state classifies as enemies, and their understanding of that ties into the recruiters’ earlier statement that “the globe is our playground.” I ended up asking them whether being a liar was a qualification for the NSA because:

@Madi_Hatter a 2008 slideshow for college seniors considering CIA careers asked potential applicants: “Are you good at manipulating people?”

— David Mehnert (@Savants) July 2, 2013

The NSA’s instrumental understanding of language as well as its claustrophobic social world was readily apparent. One of the recruiters discussed how they tend to socialize after work, dressing up in costumes and getting drunk (referenced below). I can imagine that also exerts a lot of social pressure and works as a kind of social closure from which it would be difficult to escape. The last thing I want to point out –once again– their defense seems to be that it’s legal. What is legal is not just.

Someone else happened to record it on an iPhone, hence the audio quality. It’s been edited mainly to cut garbled audio or audio that wouldn’t have made sense and edit out questions and comments from people who didn’t explicitly say it was ok to post their audio.You’ll hear the sound drop out for a second to mark the cuts.

Rough Transcript

Me: You said earlier that the two tasks that you do: one is tracking down the communications of your adversaries and the other is protecting the communications of officials. So, do you consider Germany and the countries the US has been spying on to be adversaries or are you, right now, not speaking the truth?

Me: I mean do you consider European countries, etc, adversaries or are you, right now, not telling us the truth and lying when you say that actually you simply track – you keep focusing on that, but clearly the NSA is doing a lot more than that, as we know, so I’m just asking for a clarification.

NSA_F: I’m focusing on what our foreign intelligence requires of [garbled] so, I mean you know, You can define adversary as enemy and clearly, Germany is not our enemy but would we have foreign
national interest from an intelligence perspective on what’s going on across the globe. Yeah, we do. That’s our requirements that come to us as an intelligence community organization from the policymakers, from the military, from whoever –our global so–

Me: So adversary –adversaries you actually mean anybody and everybody. There’s nobody then by your definition that is not an adversary. Is that correct?

NSA_F: That is not correct.

Me: Who is not an adversary?

NSA_F: Well, ok. I can answer your questions but the reality is—

Me: No, I’m just trying to get a clarification because you told us what the two nodes of your work are but it’s not clear to me what that encompasses and you’re being fairly unclear at the moment. Apparently it’s somebody who’s not just an enemy. It’s something broader than that. And yet, it doesn’t seem to encompass everyone.

NSA_M: So for us, umm, our business is apolitical. Ok. We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They are levied on us so, if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever then that is. If you wanna use the word adversary, you ca– we

This is not a tampon.

might use the word ‘target.’ That is what we are going after. That is the intelligence target that we are going after because we were given that requirement. Whether that’s adversary in a global war on terrorism sense or adversary in terms of national security interests or whatever – that’s for policymakers, I guess to make that determination. We respond to the requirements we are given, if that helps. And there’s a separation. As language analysts, we work on the SIG INT side of the house. We don’t really work on the information assurance (?) side of the house. That’s the guy setting up, protecting our communications.

Me: I’m just surprised that for language analysts, you’re incredibly imprecise with your language. And it just doesn’t seem to be clear. So, adversary is basically what any of your so-called “customers” as you call them –which is also a strange term to use for a government agency– decide if anybody wants, any part of the government wants something about some country, suddenly they are now internally considered or termed an ‘adversary.’ That’s what you seem to be saying.

[Pause]

NSA_M: I’m saying you can think about it using that term.

NSA_F: But the reality is it’s our government’s interest in what a foreign government or foreign country is doing.

Me: Right. So adversary can be anyone.

NSA_M: As long as they levy their requirement on us thru the right vehicle that exists for this and that it is defined in terms of a foreign intelligence requirement, there’s a national framework of foreign intelligence – what’s it called?

NSA_F: nipa

NSA_M: the national prioritization of intelligence framework or whatever that determines these are the issues that we are interested in, these are how they are prioritized.

Me: Your slide said adversary. It might be a bit better to say “target” but it’s not just a word game. The problem is these countries are fairly –I think Afghanistan is probably not shocked to realize they’re on the list. I think Germany seems to be quite shocked at what has been going on. This is not just a word game and you understand that as well as I do. So, it’s very strange that you’re selling yourself here in one particular fashion when it’s absolutely not true.

NSA_F: I don’t think we’re selling ourselves in an untrue fashion.

Me: Well, this is a recruiting session and you are telling us things that aren’t true. We also know that the NSA took down brochures and fact sheets after the Snowden revelations because those brochures also had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them. So, how are we supposed to believe what you’re saying?

[pause]

Student A (female): I have a lifestyle question that you seem to be selling. It sounds more like a colonial expedition. You know the “globe is our playground” is the words you used, the phrasing that you used and you seem to be saying that you can do your work. You can analyze said documents for your so-called customers but then you can go and get drunk and dress up and have fun without thinking of the repercussions of the info you’re analyzing has on the rest of the world. I also want to know what are the qualifications that one needs to become a whistleblower because that sounds like a much more interesting job. And I think the Edward Snowdens and the Bradley Mannings and Julian Assanges of the world will prevail ultimately.

NSA_M: I’m not sure what the –

Me: The question here is do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk? [This is in reference to an earlier comment made by the recruiters in which NSA_F said: they do heady work and then they go down to the bar and dress up in costume and do karaoke. I tweeted it earlier.]

NSA_M: That’s why, as I was saying, reporting the info in the right context is so important because the consequences of bad political decisions by our policymakers is something we all suffer from.

Student A: And people suffer from the misinformation that you pass along so you should take responsibility as well.

NSA_M: We take it very seriously that when we give info to our policy makers that we do give it to them in the right context so that they can make the best decision with the best info available.

Student B: Is that what Clapper was doing when he perjured himself in front of Congress? Was he giving accurate information when he said we do not collect any intelligence on the US citizens that it’s only occasionally unintentionally or was he perjuring himself when he made a statement before Congress under oath that he later declared to be erroneous or at least, untruthful the least truthful answer? How do you feel personally having a boss whose comfortable perjuring himself in front of Congress?

NSA_F: Our director is not general Clapper.

Student B: General Alexander also lied in front of Congress.

NSA_F: I don’t know about that.

Student B: Probably because access to the Guardian is restricted on the NSA’s computers. I am sure they don’t encourage people like you to actually think about these things. Thank God for a man like Edward Snowden who your organization is now part of a manhunt trying to track down, trying to put him in a little hole somewhere for the rest of his life. Thank god they exist.

Student A: and why are you denigrating anything else with language? We don’t do this; we don’t do that; we don’t read cultural artifacts, poetry? There are other things to do with language other than joining this group, ok. [last line of this comment was directed at the high school students.]

NSA_M: This job is not for everybody. Academia is a great career for people with language.

Me: So is this job for liars? Is this what you’re saying? Because, clearly, you’re not able to give us forthright answers. Given the way the way the NSA has behaved, given the fact that we’ve been lied to as Americans, given the fact that fact sheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress — is that a qualification for being in the NSA? Do you have to be a good liar?

NSA_F: I don’t consider myself to be a liar in any fashion and the reality is I mean, this was billed as if you are potentially interested in an NSA career come to our session. If you’re not, if this is your personal belief and you’re understanding of what has been presented then there is nothing that says you need to come and apply and work for us. We are not here — our role as NSA employees is not to represent NSA the things that are in the press right now about the NSA. That’s not our role at all. That’s not my area of expertise. I have not read–

Me: Right, but you’re here recruiting so you’re selling the organization. I mean I’m less interested in what your specialized role is within in the NSA. I don’t care. The fact is you’re here presenting a public face for the NSA and you’re trying to sell the organization to people that are as young as high schoolers and trying to tell us that this is an attractive option in a context in which we clearly know that the NSA has been telling us complete lies. So, I’m wondering is that a qualification?

NSA_F: I don’t believe the NSA is telling complete lies. And I do believe that you know, people can, you can read a lot of different things that are portrayed as fact and that doesn’t make them fact just because they’re in newspapers.

Student A: Or intelligence reports.

NSA_F: That’s not really our purpose here today and I think if you’re not interested in that. There are people here who are probably interested in a language career.

Me: The trouble is we can’t opt out of NSA surveillance and we don’t get answers. It’s not an option. You’re posing it as a choice like ‘oh you know people who are interested can just sit here and those of us who are not interested can just leave.’ If I could opt out of NSA surveillance and it was no longer my business, that would be fine. But it is my business because all of us are being surveilled so we’re here.

NSA_F: That is incorrect. That is not our job. That is not our business.

Me: That doesn’t seem to be incorrect given the leaks. Right, and the NSA has not been able to actually put out anything that is convincing or contrary to that.

[pause]

Student A: I don’t understand what’s wrong with having some accountability.

NSA_F: We have complete accountability and there is absolutely nothing that we can or have done without approval of the 3 branches of the government. The programs that we’re enacting–

Student B: Did you read the NY Times? Did you read about the illegal wiretapping? Why are you lying?

NSA_M: Did you read the Senate judiciary report that said there have only been 15 (?) instances, and they were all documented and done correctly by the FISA courts–

Student B: I’d love to read the opinion of the FISA court that says that this program one of the NSA’s programs was violating the 4th amendment right of massive amounts of Americans, but it’s a big ‘ol secret and only people like you who will not talk with their wives when they get home about what they do all day are able to…[garbled]…protecting us from the ‘terrorist threat’, but let’s let everyone here hear more information about karaoke.

Find this story at 8 July 2013

Staff from the National Security Agency got more than they bargained for when they attempted to recruit students to their organisation earlier this week …

A demonstrator holds a sign with a photograph of Edward Snowden during 4 July celebrations in Boston, Massachusetts. Photograph: Brian Snyder/REUTERS

On Tuesday, the National Security Agency called at the University of Wisconsin on a recruitment drive.

Attending the session was Madiha R Tahir, a journalist studying a language course at the university. She asked the squirming recruiters a few uncomfortable questions about the activities of NSA: which countries the agency considers to be “adversaries”, and if being a good liar is a qualification for getting a job at the NSA.

She has posted a recording of the session on Soundcloud, which you can hear above, and posted a rough transcript on her blog, The Mob and the Multitude. Here are some highlights.

The session begins …

Tahir: “Do you consider Germany and the countries that the NSA has been spying upon to be adversaries, or are you, right now, not speaking the truth?”

Recruiter 1: “You can define adversary as ‘enemy’ and, clearly, Germany is not our enemy. But would we have foreign national interests from an intelligence perspective on what’s going on across the globe? Yeah, we do.”

Tahir: “So by ‘adversaries’, you actually mean anybody and everybody. There is nobody, then, by your definition that is not an adversary. Is that correct?”

Recruiter 1: “That is not correct.”

Recruiter 2: “… for us, our business is apolitical, OK? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They are levied on us … We might use the word ‘target’.”

Tahir: “I’m just surprised that for language analysts, you’re incredibly imprecise with your language. And it just doesn’t seem to be clear.”

Later …

Tahir: “… this is a recruiting session and you are telling us things that aren’t true. And we also know that the NSA took down brochures and factsheets after the Snowden revelations because those factsheets also had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them, right? So how are we supposed to believe what you’re saying?”

Even later …

Tahir: “I think the question here is do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk?” [A reference to an earlier comment the recruiter made about NSA employees working hard and going to the bar to do karaoke.]

Recruiter 2: “… reporting the info in the right context is so important because the consequences of bad political decisions by our policymakers is something we all suffer from.”

Unnamed female student: “And people suffer from the misinformation that you pass along so you should take responsibility as well.”

Later still …

Male student: “General Alexander [head of the NSA] also lied in front of Congress.”

Recruiter 1: “I don’t believe that he did.”

Male student: “Probably because access to the Guardian is restricted on the Department of Defence’s computers. I am sure they don’t encourage people like you to actually think about these things. Thank God for a man like Edward Snowden who your organisation is now part of a manhunt trying to track down, trying to put him in a little hole somewhere for the rest of his life. Thank God they exist.”

And finally …

Recruiter 2: “This job isn’t for everybody, you know …”

Tahir: “So is this job for liars? Is this what you’re saying? Because, clearly, you’re not able to give us forthright answers. I mean, given the way the NSA has behaved, given the fact that we’ve been lied to as Americans, given the fact that factsheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress – is that a qualification for being in the NSA? Do you have to be a good liar?”

Recruiter 1: I don’t believe the NSA is telling complete lies. And I do believe that you know, I mean people can, you can read a lot of different things that are, um, portrayed as fact and that doesn’t make them fact just because they’re in newspapers.”

Unnamed female student: “Or intelligence reports.”

Recruiter 1: “That’s not really our purpose here today and I think if you’re not interested in that … there are people here who are probably interested in a language career.”

Bim Adewunmi
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 July 2013 13.15 BST

Find this story at 5 July 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.