Does Snowden Know Why The NSA Doesn't Need Warrants? He Might. - Truth-Out

[WillyT]

Does Snowden Know Why the NSA Doesn't Need Warrants? He Might.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014 10:21
By Peter Van Buren, Truthout | News Analysis

<snip>

A funny thing to come out of Snowden's recent interview with NBC News was his claim that he raised concerns about the National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance of US citizens through channels at the NSA, well before he began disclosing classified documents to journalists like Glenn Greenwald.

For almost a year, the NSA denied any record of Snowden speaking up, though located a single such email only following the recent television interview. It gets complicated, and very interesting, from that point.

Snowden's Email to the NSA

The email the NSA disclosed showed Snowden asked a fairly simple legal question arising from an NSA training session that outlined various legal authorities, from the US Constitution on down.

"I'm not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply Executive Orders have the same precedence as law," Snowden wrote, citing a hierarchy of governing authorities referenced during the training. "My understanding is that E.O.s [Executive Orders] may be superseded by federal statute, but E.O.s may not override statute. Am I incorrect in this? Between E.O.s and laws, which have precedence?"

"Hello Ed," came the reply from an NSA lawyer. "Executive orders . . . have the 'force and effect of law.' That said, you are correct that E.O.s cannot override a statute."

What the Email Means

Based on the NSA training he was given, Snowden was questioning which carries more weight within the NSA - an actual law passed by Congress, or an order from the president (an E.O., or executive order). The answer was a bit curvy, saying that absent a specific law to the contrary, an order from the president has the force of a law.

By way of a trite illustration, if Congress passed a law requiring Snowden to eat tuna every day for lunch in the NSA canteen, he'd have to do that, even if the president ordered him to have the tomato soup instead. However, absent a law specifically telling him what to eat, the president's order meant he would have to eat soup. Of course, if Congress did not even know of the president's order, it could not pass a law countering it.

Back to 2006

Hold on to the Snowden question for a moment and let's go back to 2006...

<snip>

Check out the exchange between Hayden and a reporter over the 4th Amendment, at the linked article.

Link: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24234-does-snowden-know-why-the-nsa-doesnt-need-warrants-he-might

[Mnemosyne]

1. K&R for more visibility. nt

[WillyT]

2. Thanks... The Part About Parsing The 4th Amendment Was Enlightening...

[hootinholler]

3. I'm surprised the usual suspects aren't keeping this kicked

So here's a kick so maybe they'll come help.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[countryjake]

5. I can't see the prez answering such a question, not yet, anyway.

He'd probably say that it's not something he's able to discuss, amerikan interests and all, since he's a lot smarter than Hayden was back in 2006...just look at how Hayden danced around with the direct questions he was asked, quite the performance!

A reasonable guess would be that yes, Snowden knows. However, I wouldn't be too sure of that cause if he is aware of an Executive Order, would he have gone ahead to throw his future away, knowing that they'd already covered all the bases to get away with it? I know that when his emails came up in the Williams' interview, I figured that we'd never see any of them verified (not by anyone in the government, anyway), but then when the NSA produced one, immediately, the next day, that stuff about statutes vs. an EO was confusing to me.

After reading this article, doesn't it seem rather ominous that the only email they released to the public was one addressing Executive Orders? Makes me go hmmm.....

[Mojorabbit]

6. k and r nt