(emphasis added)

And I really think it’s the supreme obligation of every journalist and every citizen when they hear an American official say --- 'this story about us jeopardizes national security' --- to demand specifics; to ask, what exactly it is that has jeopardized national security.

Ah, evidence. Facts. Wonderful things.

I think it important to note that we should not only be skeptical when someone from within the surveillance industrial complex tells us that disclosure would harm national security but also when they make bold claims that programs have thwarted terrorist plots sans any evidence to back up those claims.

According to Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, the Obama administration has been using extreme interpretations of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

Evidently, one of the Obama administration's extreme interpretations of the law says they can get around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) by having contractors to do their dirty work for them.

In other words, it’s illegal for the government to collect information on U.S. citizens, so the Obama administration has hired contractors to do it for them. That’s where guys like Ed Snowden come in.

Take a glance at the documents released by Glenn Greenwald so far. None of them are government documents. They're all internal corporate documents explaining how to fulfill government contracts, particularly with respect to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

None of these documents suggest that the government --- as in government employees --- are doing the collecting. The contractors are evidently doing all of the collecting.

The contractors, not the government, evidently collect information "directly from the servers" of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc.

This presumably (theoretically) draws a legal line between contractors, who collect massive quantities of information, and the government, which uses a tiny proportion of that information to target individuals.

This scenario, if correct, explains why the government is bothering to use contractors at all. The contractors are apparently an integral part of the Obama administration's scheme to subvert our Constitution.

It is the military that is doing the spying on Americans, and have been doing so for a long time:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

(On The Origin of Security - 2, quoting CNET).

The law requires the government to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when they try to pin crimes on people like Greenwald.

That constitutional requirement is there because they are known to lie.

Dredd: I think it a mistake of monumental proportions to limit this to the military.

The military does not act in a vacuum. It is a critical component of what President Eisenhower aptly dubbed the "military-industrial complex."

The list of private contractors who have stepped into the role of what former CIA and NSA Director, General Michael Hayden, described as a "digital Blackwater" reads like a who's who of the military-industrial complex. In addition to Booz Allen and The Carlyle Group, they include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Narus, a subsidiary of Boeing, and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC).

The executive offices of many of these corporate merchants of death are occupied by former military generals, as are some of the highest positions at the intelligence agencies.

The revolving door offers lucrative positions in the private sector for those holding public office. General Hayden, for example, left government service to team with former Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. They created The Chertoff Group, which then recruited at least eleven former high-level DHS officials. With this incestuous relationship locked in, the Chertoff Group then sought to capitalize upon public fears in order to sell to the government full-body airport scanners.

On the subject of treason, I would add that everyone one upon assuming a public office within the U.S. takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of these United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

There's a counterpoint to Benjamin Franklin's famous remark: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Any public official who would defile the Constitution by trading our liberties for the profits of the cyber-security industrial complex is a domestic enemy of the Constitution who should be tried for treason.

Ernie @6,

Dredd: I think it a mistake of monumental proportions to limit this to the military.

Then don't do that.

I didn't.

I just pointed out that the NSA is military, not civilian.

The military is by far the largest gatherer, seizer, listener, and user of spy data stolen from Americans (the data stays even when the contractors go).

That they hire contractors and mercenaries does not change the fact that NSA is a military operation.

It is not a monumental mistake to point out indisputable facts.

Per Dan Ellsberg, 70% of the more than $50 billion intelligence budget goes to private contractors.

If 70% of the NSA surveillance is in the hands of civilians, like Edward Snowden, I don't think it accurate to describe that surveillance as purely a "military operation."

Billy @3,

Take a glance at the documents released by Glenn Greenwald so far. None of them are government documents.

Utterly bogus.

The FISC order leaked comes from the government and shows that NSA gets the data results of the dragnet ("IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this Order, and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this Order").

The lawsuit by the ACLU names the military as a defendant.

No civilian contractors or civilian corporations are named in the lawsuit as defendants.

Dredd: The fact that the ACLU did not name civilian contractors as parties defendant in no way, shape or form alters the fact that the majority of those conducting surveillance are civilians.

@Dredd

Of course the court order is a government document.

Ernie #10,

You wrote:

Dredd: The fact that the ACLU did not name civilian contractors as parties defendant in no way, shape or form alters the fact that the majority of those conducting surveillance are civilians.

Wrong. Exactly what would you allege as grounds to make Booze Allen a defendant, or one of their employees or contractors?

The statutes and Constitutional Amendments involved are federal and apply only to the federal government.

Show me a link to support your purely speculative assertion and I will consider it.

If you are saying that the FISC ordered civilians to spy on Americans and then required them to give the results of their spying to other civilians then say so.

But it is ridiculous.

Like saying that because the NSA director ordered contract janitors to clean the NSA building better proves the building is not a military building.

The FISC ordered civilians to give private data to a military outfit, the NSA, in response to a government request for the information.

Civilians did not initiate nor do they carry out anything without a authoritive directive from the government.

In this case the military, the NSA.

Billy @ 11,

And of course it was leaked by the whistleblower.

And of course it ordered:

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this Order, and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this Order"

And of course the NSA is a military outfit.

And of course, like I said, your assertion that "None of them are government documents" is wrong.

Like I said.

@Dredd

I have no idea where the Verizon court order came from. If you have evidence that it was provided to Glenn Greenwald by Edward Snowden, please post that evidence here.

Or, when you fail to find that evidence, maybe you can just explain why you think Edward Snowden would have access to that kind of document.

With all due respect, Dredd, you are missing the point by a country mile.

The FISA Court doesn't order either the NSA or their civilian contractors to spy on Americans. The court simply approved requests by the NSA to engage in that activity.

The fact that the NSA seeks authorization from the FISA Court to engage in these activities in no way, shape or form negates the fact that the NSA retains civilian contractors to carry out the activity.

Edward Snowden and other civilian contractors carry out the task of spying upon Americans.

Whether it is either necessary or appropriate to name Booz Allen as a party defendant in the ACLU lawsuit does not alter the fact that civilians are working at the NSA!

Why is that so difficult to understand.

Billy @14 wrote:

I have no idea where the Verizon court order came from.

Actually, Billy, your posts here reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about.

First you claimed @3 that Greenwald hadn't produced any government documents. When Dredd appropriately pointed out that he produced a FISA Court order, which was a Top Secret government document, you insisted on proof that it came from Snowden.

But Snowden has openly admitted that he was the source of the classified information that was received by Greenwald.

You've spun your wheels on nonsense.

@Ernest

When I said none of the documents were government documents, I was talking about the documents provided by Ed Snowden.

I never assumed, as you did, that Snowden provided the Verizon court order to Glenn Greenwald. I'm too smart for that.

Ernie @15,

You wrote:

With all due respect, Dredd, you are missing the point by a country mile.

Au contrare, it is not I, it is you who are creating a corporate diversion from the military truth.

In your post you used the description "NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden" ... you did not use the description "corporate whistleblower".

The big story is that the U.S. military is spying on all Americans with the assistance of a secret court order.

Which is Orwellian and un-American.

If it were merely a corporate issue the lawsuit would be in state court against Booz Hamilton.

The allegations would be invasion of privacy, not constitutional violations. The 4th Amendment applies to and binds government, not to civilians.

The reality is that the case is in federal court against the military because "NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden" is the actionable scenario.

Dredd @19 wrote:

If it were merely a corporate issue the lawsuit would be in state court against Booz Hamilton.

The allegations would be invasion of privacy, not constitutional violations. The 4th Amendment applies to and binds government, not to civilians.

Another swing and another miss.

The government does not evade its violation of the 4th Amendment by retaining private contractors to do its dirty work. The NSA and Booz Allen are co-conspirators in those violations. That is precisely what happened here!

The phrase used by you, "NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden" is somewhat misleading. Snowden was not employed by the NSA. He was an employee of Booz Allen, who worked inside the NSA as a third-party contractor.

You will never understand the scope of the threat to our constitutional liberties posed by the "military-industrial complex" if you insist on myopically focusing only on the military.

Ernie @ 20,

Dredd @19 wrote:

If it were merely a corporate issue the lawsuit would be in state court against Booz Hamilton.

The allegations would be invasion of privacy, not constitutional violations. The 4th Amendment applies to and binds government, not to civilians.

Another swing and another miss.

Actually, I am correct and you are incorrect on the legal liability of Booz Hamilton.

The state law tort of trespass to chattels has been expanded to apply to computer invasions that extract data (17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 421). But that does not fit the facts in the NSA whistleblower case.

Since a federal court ordered the private entity Verizon to tender all phone call data to the NSA, it is a federal issue that implicates the 4th Amendment unreasonable search and seizure clauses.

It is not a state tort case.

Focusing on the military is important because it implicates a coup, as General Wesley Clark and other officials aware of the dynamics have publicly stated verbally and in writing (A Tale of Coup Cities - 4). It is also important to focus on the military because they are the ones who receive the private data of all Americans, and store it at military sites.

That they allow private mercenaries or contractors to view the data they have possession of does not establish a conspiracy.

It is a contract relation unrelated to the seizure of the data under court order, not a conspiracy.

I'm beginning to think that you and I are operating from different planets, Dredd.

At no time did I suggest that the ACLU should have added Booz Allen as a party defendant.

My critique had absolutely nothing to do with the legal remedies that the ACLU could assert as against either the government or Booz Allen.

My critique of your line of thinking is that you seem to be operating under the impression that we can isolate the NSA's intrusion into our private lives strictly to U.S. military --- apparently, as revealed by your comment @24, as part of an esoteric theory about a military coup.

The truth is that what we are seeing is but an extension of the symbiotic relationship between the military and the nation's largest weapons manufacturers that dates back to the Truman administration. The only difference is that, where, in the past, we faced a military-industrial complex, we now face its subsidiary, the cyber-security industrial complex.

We don't have Generals and Admirals manning the desks of our intelligence agencies simply to exercise military power; certainly not as part of a perceived need to start a military coup. They do so because those positions provide an entrée to wealth acquisition.

Consider: Retired Admiral John M. McConnell first joined Booz Allen in 1996 after serving for four years as the head of the NSA. In 2007 McConnell became the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), making him the head of the 16-member intelligence community. In 2009, McConnell returned to Booz Allen, where he now receives more than $1 million/year, plus stocks, as its Vice Chairman.

McConnell left his position as the DNI, but the Booz Allen connection held fast. Retired Air Force General James R. Clapper, who now serves as the DNI, is a former Booz Allen executive.

For the private contractors and the public officials who traverse the revolving door, data mining is the new Gold Rush.

It isn't just the raw assertion of military power, Dredd. It's wealth and power, combined!

Ya dig?