Greenwald's evidence for his latest claim is a 2008 report.

[ProSense]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do we have any evidence that this capability, pretty explosive capability, any evidence that it was used?

GREENWALD: Well, there's lots of evidence that there has been abuse on the part of the NSA. There was a report actually by your network, ABC News and Brian Ross, from several years ago, where NSA analysts, low-level ones, got caught eavesdropping on the telephone conversations between soldiers and their girlfriends who were stationed in Iraq and America. There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. There are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to Senator Wyden by James Clapper, that the NSA has exceeded even the legal authority that it acknowledges it has, and they write it off to inadvertent keystrokes or technological confusion.

The real issue here is that what the NSA does is done in complete secrecy. Nobody really monitors who they are eavesdropping on, and so the question of abuse is one that the Congress ought to be investigating much more aggressively.

- more -

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-judy-smith-jack-lew/story?id=19792551

That's his evidence: some reports. The report wasn't about "low-level" analyst being "caught eavesdropping." It was about Bush's illegal spying.

Here is what he's referring to:

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

<...>

"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.

<...>

Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007.

<...>

The accounts of the two former intercept operators, who have never met and did not know of the other's allegations, provide the first inside look at the day to day operations of the huge and controversial US terrorist surveillance program.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-inside-account-us-eavesdropping-americans/story?id=5987804&singlePage=true

Report: U.S. spied on Americans' intimate conversations abroad

By Pam Benson
CNN National Security Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress is looking into allegations that National Security Agency linguists have been eavesdropping on Americans abroad.

The congressional oversight committees said Thursday that the Americans targeted included military officers in Iraq who called friends and family in the United States.

The allegations were made by two former military intercept operators on a television news report Thursday evening.

A terrorist surveillance program instituted by the Bush administration allows the intelligence community to monitor phone calls between the United States and overseas without a court order -- as long as one party to the call is a terror suspect.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying.on.americans/

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

1. Must be compiling old news stories for his book and felt the need to rehash.

[struggle4progress]

2. "Bush did it! And I think Obama is no different thn Bush! So vote third party -- or just don't vote!

[blm]

9. EXACTLY!!!

.

[ProSense]

10. Yup. n/t

[msanthrope]

15. Ratfucking is hard werk. nt

[sigmasix]

42. this is greenwald in a nutshell

[Arctic Dave]

3. I'm not sure, let's check this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023361622

[MjolnirTime]

5. You'd rather noone see this.

[MjolnirTime]

4. Glen Beck Greenwald rides on!

[Scurrilous]

6. Oh, Glenn...

[Whisp]

7. Why doesn't Grayson know this?

really. Now he's all jumping up and down? Where was he on this issue for how many years now? Why is it important to him now, of all times?

Oh, I better watch what I say about Precious Grayson.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. Greenwald is a supreme master of propaganda.

Yet he's a clueless unwitting tool of those with the real agenda of disabling or knocking the NSA out of the hunt for hackers funded by the Chinese military. The negative political exposure, they believe , gives them a temporary advantage. I don't think Greenwald or Snowden had any idea who fed them the stuff they got, and who would benefit from the information dump.

[ProSense]

23. He's now breaking half-baked claims with no evidence. n/t

[Progressive dog]

12. Please stop making Glenn look like a dope,

just because he is one. That's not fair.

[ProSense]

13. Not my doing.

[Progressive dog]

16. +1

[jazzimov]

14. I've noticed that all of the Whistleblowers

that they've trotted out are talking about pre-2008 activities. Stuff that we knew about and prompted the 2008 Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008

If we disagree with the Law, then we need to change it.

[ProSense]

17. Not just that,

"I've noticed that all of the Whistleblowers that they've trotted out are talking about pre-2008 activities. Stuff that we knew about and prompted the 2008 Law."

...the reports are written to confuse, describing activities under the Bush administration, but creating the impression that they're occuring under Obama.

They even confuse themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262084

[JI7]

29. i noticed on other sites it's always wingnuts who are complaining about this stuff

which happened under Bush and blaming it on Obama.

i wonder if they are purposely lying or really don't know.

[ProSense]

30. No doubt the wingnuts would feign ignorance and

use any misleading reports to justify their claims.

[Thinkingabout]

18. When I have attempted to point out mist of what they are complaining about was pre 2009,, I don't

Think GG fans believes it. Many indicate their phone conversations have all been recorded when in fact it is the phone call records, like the information on their phone bills. Some indicate warrants has to be issued for every phone call record individually when in fact the phone call records belongs to the communication companies and the warrants are issued to the communication companies.

If GG wanted the correct information to be revealed then he knows there is nothing to cry about. GG is a has been, it tells me the Guardian is not interested in truthful reporting and their creditable standing is with the rags.

[Civilization2]

19. Obama has expanded on the Bush era programs and attempted to codify them in law,. Is this good?

Sorry to bust up your "leakers are all tools of China/Rethugs/??" stroke-fest, however the facts are the facts. This administration is going rather hard at Snowden, and more leakers are coming forward, and more dots are being connected. I get that you would rather maintain your denialism, and continue your complete lack or critical thought, in your partisan party pushing,. but some of us actually do criticise when we see wrongdoing. From anyone!

The spying is egregious overreach, handed over to corporate mercenaries, with ZERO accountability. Do you really see this as a good thing? or do you just puppet the party-line, no matter what it is? Because that is more than a little bit pathetic, and dare I say very much anti-american. Yes the Demos tend to be better for people than the rethugs, but they do not get a free-pass to run rampant over the law and rights, with no accountability to the people.

[ProSense]

20. No, it's nonsense. n/t

[Civilization2]

21. "Obama has expanded on the Bush era programs and attempted to codify them in law" FACT!

Please deal with reality,. how is this not truth???

[ProSense]

22. Facts:

<...>

Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here's the nickel summary:

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it's mistakenly collected domestic content, it's required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it's already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:

<...>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023060180

Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules

By SCOTT SHANE

<...>

On Thursday, in the latest release of documents supplied by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now believed to be hiding in Hong Kong, The Guardian published two documents setting out the detailed rules governing the agency’s intercepts...They show, for example, that N.S.A. officers who intercept an American online or on the phone — say, while monitoring the phone or e-mail of a foreign diplomat or a suspected terrorist — can preserve the recording or transcript if they believe the contents include “foreign intelligence information” or evidence of a possible crime. They can likewise preserve the intercept if it contains information on a “threat of serious harm to life or property” or sheds light on technical issues like encryption or vulnerability to cyberattacks.

And while N.S.A. analysts usually have to delete Americans’ names from the reports they write, there are numerous exceptions, including cases where there is evidence that the American in the intercept is working for a terrorist group, foreign country or foreign corporation.

The documents, classified “Secret,” describe the procedures for eavesdropping under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, including an N.S.A. program called Prism that mines Internet communications using services including Gmail and Facebook. They are likely to add fuel for both sides of the debate over the proper limits of the government’s surveillance programs.

They offer a glimpse of a rule-bound intelligence bureaucracy that is highly sensitive to the distinction between foreigners and “U.S. persons,” which technically include not only American citizens and legal residents but American companies and nonprofit organizations as well. The two sets of rules, each nine pages long, belie the image of a rogue intelligence agency recklessly violating Americans’ privacy.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html

Even the information Greenwald released disputes his claim.

[Civilization2]

24. There is loads more out now than just greenwald's disclosures, why keep your head in the sand?

Do you see this simply as an attack on Obama? It is not. Why can't you see this started long ago, well before bush jr. even. 9/11 was jsut a catalyst to the corporate security state buildup,. criticising the corporate coup, is not a partisan critique, it is an issue of elemental democracy.

Sometimes the truth is difficult, however it must be dealt with,. denialism is a lie based reality and leads nowhere but down.

[ProSense]

25. The OP is about Greenwald's claim. Did you not realize what the OP was about? n/t

[Civilization2]

27. I do indeed,. and yet more people support what he is saying. People in the know.

I also see your other posts, and I am interested how you can possibly see the rising corporate-mercenary spy-state as a pro-democracy trend. You seem to support the spy-state with every post.

You did not answer my question of you,. do you see this as a partisan issue? Seems rather myopic to view it that way to me. It goes to the very foundations of a democratic society.

[ProSense]

28. "More people support" him citing a 2008 report as evidence of his current claim?

"I also see your other posts, and I am interested how you can possibly see the rising corporate-mercenary spy-state as a pro-democracy trend. You seem to support the spy-state with every post. "

I think you're attempting to deflect attention from the fact that Greenwald made a claim today for which he has no evidence except a 2008 report.

[Civilization2]

31. I see, you can not answer a simple question about your own motives,. why should we trust you?

You seem to like making long winded (cut and past) attempts to discredit the bringers of truth, by attacking their character, or history or whatever it is you are pushing,. however you strategically avoid the raised issue.

You have no idea what "evidence" Greenwald or anyone has,. and this is not the point. We can see the evidence in the actions of the administration and the corporations that control them.

Obama has expanded on the Bush era programs and attempted to codify (or justify) them in law. This is a fact. There is more evidence for this statement than you can cut and past away, or discredit with a character smear. Since you neglect answering I will assume you really are protecting not Obama (in a partisan way) but the system he is serving,. the corporate-surveillance state. This is the most anti-democratic stance anyone could take,. thanks for making that clear.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. "Bringers of truth"

WTF is that?

Greenwald is working on a new book and he's busy getting press for a future book tour! Doesn't matter what bullshit he puts in it as long as you buy it! Even if it regurgitates what's been know for decades or more recently, since 2006.

[ProSense]

36. WTF? My "own motives" in the OP are pretty damn clear, and I don't really care who you "trust."

"You have no idea what 'evidence' Greenwald or anyone has"

Pathetic attempt at deflection. He cited a 2008 report. Fact!

[Th1onein]

26. +20000!

[UTUSN]

32. K #18 & K for, what's Glenn's BEEF?!1 n/t

[stupidicus]

34. meaningless garbage/nonsense

and not strictly true, by your own material

There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. James Clapper, that the NSA has exceeded even the legal authority that it acknowledges it has, and they write it off to inadvertent keystrokes or technological confusion.

which appears to be not quite so dated

Clapper also conceded that there had been “compliance problems,” in which the NSA had not met the terms of secret-court orders that allowed the data-gathering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-obscure-warnings-wyden-gets-sought-after-privacy-debate-in-wake-of-nsa-revelations/2013/07/28/267efd1a-f573-11e2-861b-70461cc1cd24_story.html

So he's correct -- there's evidence that there has been abuse.

I'm happy to wait until the next "report".

The way that I know exactly what analysts have the capability to do when spying on Americans is the story I've been working on for the last month that we're publishing this week very clearly sets forth what these programs are, that NSA analysts, low-level ones, not just ones who work for the NSA but private contractors like Mr. Snowden, are able to do. The NSA has trillions of telephone calls and emails in their databases that they've collected over the last several years. And what these programs are, are very simple screens, like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address, and it does two things. It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you've entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future. And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst.

Wow, a claim was "denied by intelligence officials"?

Here. add this to your link collection http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/james-clappers-wyden-lie0feinstein-phone.html

[ProSense]

35. Pure obfuscation and denial. He cited a 2008 report. Fact. n/t

[leveymg]

38. Are you literally unable to read past the point that agrees with your foreshortened summary?

Greenwald gave three concrete examples, only the first was a 2008 report that preceded the FISA Amendment of that year.

2) There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. There are all sorts of admissions, 3) including this week in a letter to Senator Wyden by James Clapper, that the NSA has exceeded even the legal authority that it acknowledges it has, and they write it off to inadvertent keystrokes or technological confusion.

Do you think you have some sort of Jeddi powers of suggestion over others? Maybe, in some cases if this thread is any indication, you do. But, only those who agree with you, anyway.

[ProSense]

39. Let me

Are you literally unable to read past the point that agrees with your foreshortened summary?

Greenwald gave three concrete examples, only the first was a 2008 report that preceded the FISA Amendment of that year.

2) There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. There are all sorts of admissions, 3) including this week in a letter to Senator Wyden by James Clapper, that the NSA has exceeded even the legal authority that it acknowledges it has, and they write it off to inadvertent keystrokes or technological confusion.

Do you think you have some sort of Jeddi powers of suggestion over others? Maybe, in some cases if this thread is any indication, you do. But, only those who agree with you, anyway.

...help unravel that spin. First Greenwald said:

"Well, there's lots of evidence that there has been abuse on the part of the NSA." (That's not specific to the "low-level" analysts claim)

Then he said:

"There was a report actually by your network, ABC News and Brian Ross, from several years ago, where NSA analysts, low-level ones, got caught eavesdropping on the telephone conversations between soldiers and their girlfriends who were stationed in Iraq and America" (That's specific to the "low-level" analysts claim)

"There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows." (That's not specific to the "low-level" analysts claim)

"There have been reports in the New York Times that the NSA has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows." (That's not specific to the "low-level" analysts claim)

"There are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to Senator Wyden by James Clapper, that the NSA has exceeded even the legal authority that it acknowledges it has, and they write it off to inadvertent keystrokes or technological confusion." (That's not specific to the "low-level" analysts claim)


One of those things is not like the others. Answer: The one relevant to the "low-level" analysts claim, which Greenwald cited as evidence a 2008 report.

[leveymg]

41. The slides themselves are proof that low-level analysts carry out most of the initial profiling

and, according to Gen. Alexander, they have broad powers to search through multiple gov't databases that contain information that originated with NSA and foreign gov't agencies in that profiling step.

Low-level analysts have 72 hours during which they can access virtually everything, except perhaps real-time telephone content. The information that NSA uses to determine whether a warrant should be sought is not minimized, and there really are no particular safeguards for US person privacy at that stage.

Everything that we know about the process is consistent with Snowden's account. Please, see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3358462

[stupidicus]

40. repeating nonsense doesn't help your case

and continuing to act like that is the only thing he "cited" in terms of "abuse" is only a measure of less than flattering character flaw.

You're in the untenable position of claiming that just because one example of "abuse" he "cited" was during the Bush years, that all the rest can be ignored as what, untrue... http://rt.com/usa/snowden-leaks-surveillance-suits-174/ That one will be more than amply demostrated at some point is almost a certainty. Hell, should the Patriot Act, etc, be revised will be evidence of "abuses" at this point, given it will occur in response to agreement that they have occurred, and need to be curtailed.

Any illegal and/or unconstitutional action on the part of the NSA under the BHO admin is an "abuse", and if you wanna think that none have occurred, be our guest.

I didn't "deny" anything, since I conceded the dated nature of the one "citation". How long have you been struggling with integrity issues that claims like that point to?

[BeyondGeography]

37. What a piss-poor answer to a simple, direct question

[Number23]

43. heh

[ProSense]

44. .

[Scurrilous]

45. K & R