Q) You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts
of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?
A) No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of
public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that
many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion
Q)Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only
$122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)
A) I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings
was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been
Q)Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?
A) Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many
Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and
expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo,
where men still sit without charge.
Q)Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means and Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?
A) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to
query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so
on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are
cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.
NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702
authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They
excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of
"warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like
a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.
edit on 17/6/13 by HumanPLC because: added