Ex-NSA Whistleblower Fed Up with Constitutional Violations
[Editor's Note: The video seen below is from Russia Today (RT). You should note that they always presents themselves as "RT" instead of Russia Today . While much info presented by Russia Today appear legit, I'm somewhat susupicious. After all, it's "Russia" Today, giving us the real lowdown on America Today. Really? I have the feeling that they are serving a hidden agenda, but I'm willing to view their videos and judge them on an individual basis.
This guy might be perfectly legit in every respect, but he also might be serving a hidden counter-intelligence purpose, not readily apparent at this point. You'll notice that both people seen in this interview refer to Julian Assange in heroic terms. Julian may also be completely legit as well, or he also might be a setup for a deepeer disinfo agenda as some have suggested. I don't really know, but I'm wary of such well produced "exposes" When Serge Monast broke the Project Blue Beam story in mid 1990s, the NSA,or the CIA, or the Pentagon , of whoever made the decison to kill him, had him hit with a scalar weapon that induced a heart attack in a healthy young man and that was the end of any more talks or videos by Serge Monast. But this guy gets to tell his story all over the Internet in high def video on Russia Today. ..Ken]
July 11, 2012
NSA Whistleblower: My Oath is to the Constitution, Not to the Power Politics
Thomas Andrews Drake is a former National Security Agency executive in the US who sacrificed his career to blow the whistle on wrong-doings inside the NSA.
He was an expert on electronic eavesdropping and had top secret security clearance. He was also a decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, computer software expert, linguist, management and leadership specialist.
Mr. Drake essentially sacrificed his career to blow the whistle on the agency by challenging the Trailblazer Project, a super secret surveillance deal that the NSA (National Security Agency) entered with the White House after 9/11, in which the NSA would become the executive agent for this secret surveillance program, and which violated the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
In 2010, the U.S. government alleged that Drake ‘mishandled’ documents, one of the few such Espionage Act cases in U.S. history. His defenders claim that he was instead being persecuted for challenging the Trailblazer Project. He is the 2011 recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling and co-recipient of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award.
On June 9, 2011, all 10 original charges against him were dropped. He rejected several deals because he refused to “plea bargain with the truth”.
He eventually pleaded to one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer; Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, who helped represent him, called it an act of “Civil Disobedience.”
They also discuss the current situation with whistle-blowers and Julian Assange and also the Flame and Stuxnet viruses, created by the U.S. government.
RT: What was the potential harm of the program that you challenged while working with the NSA?
Thomas Drake:There was a very large flagship program called Trailblazer that was designed to catapult the NSA into the twenty first century to deal with the vast amounts of data generated by the digital age. Given the massive fraud and abuse that the NSA had created with the Trailblazer program, as well as the super secret surveillance program, the NSA completely violated the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. In particular, the stature called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was the first commandment at the NSA: you did violate Americans’ privacy without a warning, and if you did – there is a criminal penalty for doing so. And I found this out to my horror and shock, that shortly after 9/11, the NSA entered a secret agreement with the White House in which the NSA would become the executive agent for this secret surveillance program.
On the front end, it was designed to deal with a terrorist threat – and that was quite understandable. But what it did – it actually turned the US into a collection platform.Vast rims of data were increasingly being collected through other entities and saved for analysis.
RT: There is a lot of debate about the proposed legislation CISPA enabling providers (Google, Facebook etc.) to share users’ personal data with the government. Are they already doing that? Do they need this legislation to protect themselves from being liable for what they are already doing?
TD: I believe that is a part of it. The other part is the government just wants even more access to even more data. Under the Patriot Act there is a secret executive interpretation which essentially grants the government pretty much unfettered access to subscriber information held by those companies. CISPA would take that to a next level. Under the label or the rubric of cyber threats, and to provide cyber security, the government wants even more invasive access to networks not normally available to that public.
RT: So what is the goal; is it total surveillance?
TD: If you take what has been happening in the post-9/11 security world, what you’re see is the establishment of a surveillance society – the establishment of a surveillance network. People don’t realize the extent to which we’re surveilled in many, many ways. The extent to which vast amounts of our transactional data in all forms – electronic forms, your emails, your tweets, bank records and everything else – are all subject or suspect in terms of surveillance. It raises the specter of the rise of so-called “soft tyranny.” It raises the specter of you being automatically suspicious until you prove that you’re not; the specter of a universal and persistent wiretap on every single person. If not – they can create one. Because what happens if they don’t like you? What if you speak ill will against the government? What if you say something they consider disloyal? That is not the country I took an oath to defend four times in my government career.
There is also a fear element. Fear in itself is control. What would people do when they are fearful is they would begin to censor themselves. It sends an extraordinary chilling message that if you speak out – they are going to hammer you hard. Our security has become our state religion, you don’t question it. And if you question it – your loyalty is questioned.
RT: A question about Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. How angry you think Washington is at Julian Assange?
TD: They are extremely angry. According to press reports, there has been a secret Grand Jury and maybe a secret indictment. They want to get him and put him away. There are those at high levels in this country – they have called for a death warrant.
Believe me, if the US get its hands on him – they’re going to do everything they can to put him away for as long as they can – or worse.
Speaking truth to power is very dangerous. The power elites, those in charge don’t like dirty linen being aired. They don’t like skeletons in the closet being seen. Not only do they object to it, they decide to turn it into criminal activity. Remember, my whistle blowing was criminalized by my own government.
RT: Journalists exposing civilian deaths in drone strikes are exposed as helping terrorist. The terrorist-helper label has become a convenient tool to brush off investigative journalism, hasn’t it?
TD: What it is, you go after the messenger to deal with the message… because addressing the message has become very uncomfortable.
If we start moving away from the law, which has already happened very significantly, and leave it to policy as a substitute – we’re going down a very slippery slope in the US.
RT: US officials condemn cyber attacks but it turns out the US government itself is involved in cyber attacks (like Stuxnet and Flame viruses). How do you see that?
TD: There are authorized leaks, which is an oxymoron coming from senior administration officials.
RT:They want people to know that?
TD: Right. I believe that is the case. They actually wanted people to know what the US is capable of doing. It is another form of warfare, it is a cyber weapon. But it is a Pandora’s box because we’re on uncharted territories of a virtual war.
The Pentagon itself has it on record that if a nation conducts actions against the US using things like Stuxnet – that’s an act of war. But we consider it (our actions) "information" or "cyber operations". It goes under a whole host of different labels to make it something different from what it really is. So where are the lines drawn?
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.