“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss

“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss Written by Alex Newman

font size decrease font size increase font size Print E-mail “We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss Essentially confessing to mass murder and multiple other crimes, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, the former boss of both the NSA and the CIA, admitted that the Obama administration has been murdering people around the world based solely on the so-called metadata collected by U.S. intelligence agencies. The controversial insider’s remarks confirmed growing fears and warnings by critics of the out-of-control federal government that, despite efforts to downplay its unconstitutional spying and assassination programs, Americans have much to be concerned about.

Hayden, a retired general and operative for the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, led the National Security Agency starting under the Clinton administration until 2005 — the same NSA that whistleblower Edward Snowden had recently exposed lawlessly spying on Americans in violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Before taking over in 2006 at the Central Intelligence Agency — the outfit that has carried out much of the federal mass-murder via drone program — Hayden oversaw the massive expansion of NSA’s targeting of Americans.

While credible analysts and critics widely suspect federal officials are still hiding the truth, proponents of the illegal NSA espionage schemes tried to downplay its actions as the “mere” collection of metadata, rather than the actual content of calls and e-mails. Thanks to Hayden’s remarks last month at Johns Hopkins University’s Foreign Affairs Symposium, though, Americans can begin to understand the enormity of the danger — even in the unlikely event that authorities are telling the truth about how far the assaults on constitutionally protected privacy rights actually extend.

“We kill people based on metadata,” Hayden admitted. The startling confession, which has sparked headlines around the world, came after Hayden agreed with another participant at the symposium that metadata can reveal “everything” about a surveillance target. The other participant, Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole, had quoted NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker as saying, “Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”

Hayden agreed, calling the description on the usefulness of metadata “absolutely correct.” Elements of the NSA’s Orwellian, Fourth Amendment-shredding espionage regime targeting hundreds of millions of Americans officially came to light after former contractor Snowden leaked documents about it. The revelations sparked a massive public outcry, which officials tried to downplay by claiming that the only information being collected on Americans without warrants or even probable cause was metadata. That collected data, though, includes details such as who is communicating, when, where, for how long, with whom, and more.

Of course, it is now public knowledge that the Obama administration has murdered thousands of people around the world including women, children, and even an American teenager, using its drones and missiles. In fact, the White House even claims to believe it has the legal authority to murder its victims despite never charging or prosecuting them for a crime — much less securing a conviction in a court of law. Immediately following the shocking admission and a brief pause, though, Hayden tried to suggest that the mass-murder program relying on metadata does not apply domestically.

“But that’s not what we do with this metadata,” the former CIA and NSA boss said after pausing for a moment, perhaps realizing the gravity of the admission he had just made. “It’s really important to understand the program in its entirety, not the potentiality of the program, but how the program is actually conducted.” In other words, after admitting that the federal government murders people based on metadata — can you imagine if Putin admitted doing that? — Hayden quickly tried to claim that the information collected on Americans is not used for that purpose. At least not yet.

It was not clear whether such data played a role in Obama’s selection of the multiple Americans, including a 16-year-old boy in Yemen looking for his father, murdered by drone thus far. At the event, the ex-CIA and -NSA boss then continued trying to soothe public fears over the awesome powers usurped by the federal government.

According to Hayden’s version, the NSA has been obtaining phone records from companies since October of 2001. Much of the unconstitutional snooping regime has been justified under the misnamed “Patriot” Act. The NSA then “puts them in a lockbox” that is supposedly “under very strict limitations” in terms of access. Hayden then gave a hypothetical example of how a phone number connected to a supposed “terrorist” could be checked with lawlessly collected metadata to supposedly advance “national security.”

“What it cannot do are all those things that ... allows someone to create your social network, your social interactions, your patterns of behavior,” Hayden continued after dropping the bombshell confession. “One could make the argument that could be useful, [or] that could be illegal, but it’s not done. In this debate, it’s important to distinguish what might be done with what is being done.” With NSA bosses having been exposed lying even to lawmakers under oath, however, analysts say taking them at their word would be foolish at best.

Of course, the cat Hayden let out of the bag on metadata being used to select murder targets was not entirely a surprise to analysts who have been closely following developments in the growing cloud of scandal surrounding the NSA. In February, journalists Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, citing Snowden’s leaks and comments by U.S. officials, had reported essentially the same thing: that metadata collected by the NSA is used to pick targets for extermination. Numerous innocent people have “absolutely” been killed under the program, according to a former drone operator quoted in their Intercept report.

In reality, since no trials were ever conducted and all people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, critics say all of the victims thus far have been innocent — at least as far as the law is concerned. Estimates suggest thousands of people from Pakistan and Yemen to Afghanistan and Somalia — many of them simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, known as “collateral damage” — have been murdered by drones so far. Obama personally approves each assassination, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient confessed publicly.

Despite officials hiding behind the half-baked veneer of the terror war, the details and admissions offered by Hayden should be extremely alarming to everyday Americans. Indeed, in recent years, the federal government has produced official documents claiming that essentially anyone with an opinion it disagrees with may be a potential “terrorist.” That includes pro-life activists, liberty lovers, constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, Christians, environmentalists, states’ rights proponents, advocates for national sovereignty, veterans, Orthodox Jews, and more.

While the NSA lawlessly gathers the data, the CIA has been leading much of the assassination program. As The New American reported in 2011, the agency’s mass-murder-via-drone program accelerated quickly under the Obama administration as victims from Africa to Asia were executed by missiles dropped from the sky. Even Americans are fair game, the administration claims. The developments were so extreme that a former senior intelligence official told the Washington Post that the CIA had been turned into “one hell of a killing machine.” Critics said that in addition to a brazen violation of the U.S. Constitution, the global murder programs may constitute war crimes as well.

In his May 10 report about the symposium and Hayden’s admission there, Georgetown University’s Cole noted that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have come together to rein in some of the worst NSA abuses uncovered thus far. The effort, which would put a few tepid restrictions on the NSA’s ability to continue violating Americans’ rights, is known as the “USA Freedom Act.” However, he added in the New York Review of Books, much more needs to be done to properly deal with the issue. “The biggest mistake any of us could make would be to conclude that this bill solves the problem,” Cole said. Photo of Michael Hayden: National Security Law Journal

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Define Terrorist:
A person who uses Terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. O.E.D

Define Terrorism:
The Unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and Intimidation in the pursuit of of Political aims. O.E.D

So Congress has authorized the use of Drones to kill person or persons unknown, without a court appearance both domestic and abroad , have they?

If Yes, this is an undeclared act of War against a sovereign nation.
If No, these are acts of Terrorism.

To give an example:
I use the web site known as FreeRepublic.
This in Obummers eyes is “counter Revolutionary” .
He gives the CIA the nod to launch a Drone attack.
Success or failure somebody is now Dead without due process of Law, in a country where state execution has been outlawed for 50+ years.
If my country hasn't authorized this action, which it legally can't ,it is an act of War.
As far as i’m concerned it is Terrorism, either way.
Now install this in an unstable middle eastern mind.....

Aiding and abetting the illegal actions of obarry is a terrorist action, by definition.
Use of Drones in a field of combat is one thing ,to use them against unarmed civilians going about their lawful business is quite another.
See how easy it is for an out of control ‘Terrorist in chief’ to create a whole new world of hurt for the American people.

Death without trial by a foreign totalitarian regime....charming.

No telling what else the cia/nsa can do.Wonder if they do this? Supposedly, this is from Snowden. I just picked it off of today’s American Thinker.If nothing else it sure makes you think.

“Worse than you think.

Hawaii, December 31, 2013
Transcript Courtesy Edward Snowden

VALERIE JARRETT: We’re arriving at Dulles around noon with your double, Barack.
OBAMA: A shame we gotta play these games just so I can kick back on the beach another week with the family.
JAY CARNEY: Reporters returning to Washington with us haven’t tumbled to the switch, sir.
JARRETT: Just received word, Barack. The Service has finished establishing a 25 square mile exclusion zone around the beach compound. Locals were temporarily relocated to Oahu as a, uh, precautionary measure to ensure privacy for Michelle and the girls during their extended stay without you.
JAY CARNEY: The Oval Office mock-up in the spare cottage
is set, sir. Later on, you’ll deliver that three minute statement I prepared about the need for everybody to be reasonable about the budget.
OBAMA: I can handle that.
CARNEY: We’ll pass out stills of your lookalike pacing the floor in the Residence, phone in hand, working legislators. At my press
briefings, I’ll say you’re reaching out to the principals in an effort to keep fiscal disaster at bay.
OBAMA: I am?
CARNEY: Sort of, in a secondhand way. Your impersonator will place dozens of calls to Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Reid, Hoyer and others, breaking the connection before any substantive discussion ensues.
JARRETT: Jay, call Jill Abramson at the Times. Tell her the president wants an editorial next Tuesday about GOP unseriousness.
OBAMA: The losers. Hey Miche, how about another Blue Hawaii, easy on the vodka. Forget the little umbrella.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/inside_the_obama_frat_house_comments.html#disqus_thread

Terrorists, in our case here, are stateless. Islam has been at war with Western Civilization for centuries, and frankly, I believe that Muslims owe allegiance only to Islam, and to no nation.

Americans who go join with them in attacks against the U.S.A. are traitors.

We're no longer in a universe our grandparents would recognize and you're trying to force a naive template upon a crazed medieval situation.

The targets were killed because they’re terrorists.
The way you stop terrorists from finding a safe place to hide is to harm or kill those providing safe haven and protection to the terrorists.
This is how the U.S. has always dealt with pirates. It is appropriate for us to deal with terrorists in the same manner.
Does anyone have a problem with this?

There are several problems — one is how the label terrorist is applied, and by whom.
Another problem, particularly WRT drones, is that they are not an accurate weapon (as opposed to snipers) and incur collateral deaths. (You may think that a terrorist's friends and family deserve to die by virtue of their relationship to the terrorist — I do not; moreover I view such as an excuse to murder innocents.) In addition to this, metadata is being used to flag people as terrorists, but to act on this w/o verification [i.e. HumInt] it violates the gun safety rule of being sure of your target.
Third, there is the problem that the mechanics of point #1 could be altered so that, for example, protesting or disputing government claims [such as the recent militia standoff in Nevada] would be deemed de facto proof that those people were terrorists.

Given the recent revelations of Fast & Furious, the NSA's domestic espionage program, the IRS's politically-targeted molestations, and the general willingness to ignore the Constitution:
is it reasonable¹ to trust the government with the ability to end life without trial?

¹ — Leaving aside active the battlefield.

The Crazed Medieval template does hold water, however us behaving in an uncivilised manner promotes the growth of terrorism.
The Medieval mind is not seeing their actions as evil, only ours, we are seen as the aggressor.
We must take the high ground and cease behaving as if we can kill with impunity , without due process , this make us as bad as them and this must not be the case against civilians.
How long before this ‘kill because i can’ attitude is turned on the American people themselves. How long before 85 year old Mr Smith in his pick-up truck is Hellfired for the ‘Common Good’ for speaking ‘out of turn’.
It will happen.

Yes ,those who join them are Traitors and must be dealt with as the legal system deems fit.

The problem I have is that the US government is increasingly not the government of the American people. If Ronald Reagan were President I would agree with your propositions. He is not and the United States has changed in ways none of us who grew up in the 50’s or 60’s could have possibly imagined. Much of the upper levels of the permanent governing class firmly believe that regular middle class Americans are much more of a security concern than any foreign terrorist. These people are very comfortable with data mining Americans and using robot planes to patrol the skies of the United States. To them the Tea Party is a manifestation of something far more dangerous than any Muslim terrorist group. This is no exaggeration but a conclusion that I come to based on reading the products of the professional security community and listening to what ‘security academics’ say in their coded language at a number of meetings. A government that promulgates FACTA and desires to have de facto abilities to track and when it decides to eliminate American citizens is to be feared far more than any foreign entity. In the past I would dismiss Ron Paul’s remarks that when the government decides to be serious about closing the US Mexican border it would be aimed at keeping Americans in not illegals out as paranoid thinking. Today it seems mordantly correct. This is not a fantasy but a logical extension of what is currently underway. Some day some sort of committee that officially doesn’t exist will decide some ‘domestic terrorist’ is an eminent danger and ‘exigent circumstances’ will necessitate the ‘terrorists’ ‘neutralization’. The sky over the United States is growing very dark. I personally do not know how the combination of a security state lurching out of control combined with a political and security class penetrated by people and ideas that see the traditional moral and political codes of the US to be the real enemy in the ‘transformative struggle’ can be combated. We, the people that populate this site are becoming the enemies of the United States in the eyes of the people who control the data mining and the robot planes. At the least we need to disabuse ourselves of notions that we are considered anything but a revenue source and loose change and pests to the people in suits and uniforms that we see parading themselves before us on television.

“... (the more you kill the more enemies you make). ...”

Yet another way to get it all wrong.

If we kill enough of them, the survivors will lose their nerve eventually. Or their fatality rate will reach 100 percent, after which they are no longer a threat.

It is a mistake to think that we can render ourselves so amiable and inoffensive that no one else will want to attack us or take our stuff.

It is likewise a mistake to think we can “lead by example,” by being so good and wonderful that enemies will be so awed by our moral stature, so dazzled by the magnanimity of our behavior, that they will stop attacking us or stop trying to take our stuff.

To live is to have enemies: a truism unwelcome, perhaps, to the American character. Anyone who cannot accept it, or who shrinks from the consequences, becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

You are still utterly missing the point. What is your war on terror victory condition? At what measurable verifiable point will you declare we are done? By what objective criteria will you know we have reached that point? And don’t say ‘they stop attacking us’ because that will not happen. As long as we drive around third world hellholes someone over there will be willing to take a shot at us. How will you know they ‘lost their nerve’? As long as they can still plant a roadside bomb why would they stop?

“You are still utterly missing the point. What is your war on terror victory condition? ... why would they stop?”

I posed two victory conditions, but TalonDJ cannot bear to contemplate them, apparently.

Just to reiterate:

1. If an enemy is eliminated, they will stop attacking us (they will also stop attacking everybody else, but let us set aside universality, at least for the moment). My sense of neatness tempts me to favor this one; it’s like capital punishment. Recidivism rate is pretty small.

2. I included “until an enemy loses interest” only out of a sense of practicality. There are many situations in history where what TalonDJ dismisses with such self-righteousness, certainty, and scorn, has actually happened.

And it is useless to attempt to specify in advance criteria like “terror victory conditions.” It might even be counterproductive: gives away too much.

Winning is of more importance than staging a debate, most of which will be carried on between people who don’t know what’s going on, or who insist on arguing over aspects of no importance, nor even any relevance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.