R.K.: And that really had to do with the way that you looked at the information. In your talk yesterday you described how your approach - you basically qualify somebody to be of interest if they've had any contact with other people who are qualified as of interest and can't tell who they are until you get a court order getting permission to do it or something like that?
W.B.: Yes the idea was if you had for example a known terrorist in Yemen or somewhere overseas in the Middle East calling into the United States to a person in the United States you could follow the transactions involved but any of the attributes that person in the United States you would encrypt so that you couldn't tell who it was until you found some evidence, probable cause evidence that would say they should be monitored and then you would use that, under the rules they could use hot pursuit types of approaches and do that kind of acquisition of information for seventy two hours without a warrant but after that they'd have to have a warrant and that would give you that period of time to get a warrant. So once you showed probable cause then you would do a de-crypt of the attributes of that person and target them specifically.
R.K.: As opposed to what they're doing now is just collecting everything and getting it rubber-stamped through the FISA court that really doesn't do any protection of the public, right?
W.B.: Yeah what it does, the FISA court simply is giving them rulings in secret that say this is constitutional or issuing general warrants in secret. It's all being done in secret, they tried to keep it in secret but Edward Snowden has kind of exposed what they've been doing so they can't deny it now, that they've basically been creating a secret law and a secret constitution by this court.
R.K.: Secret constitution. I just want to take a little bit more background. You became a Whistleblower. What did you do and what happened?
W.B.: I was still working there when 9/11 happened and after 9/11 I was trying to think of ways and means I could help them get the bad guys but then they started pulling in data and then mid-October of 2001 they started pulling in data on every US Citizen, actually started doing bulk collecting on US Citizens.
Not foreigners, so it first started with our people in this country then it expanded to everybody else eventually in the world, but that to me was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody so therefore I... and of course I knew that that decision had to have been made at the highest levels and there was no reversing it so I basically said I couldn't stay at NSA and be an accessory to violating the constitution so I had to leave.
Which I did as soon as I could which was like two and a half weeks after I found out, so they offered an early out and I quickly took it and got out so then I went to the House Intelligence Committee who's job it is to monitor these Intelligence Community agencies to make sure they do not spy on US Citizens without a warrant which is exactly what they were doing and the entire FISA court, all the intelligence committees, all of them were created after the Church Committee investigations in the mid-seventies to try to ensure that the Intelligence Community would not spy on US Citizens then and to make sure that that didn't happen.
Well that was their entire function and ensure that they only did foreign intelligence which was their charter, but they changed their charter, they modified it and went beyond their charter, and now they went completely beyond it saying this is constitutional and everybody can do domestic intelligence here. So that to me means this court should be fired, I mean we need to get rid of them. I mean they can't be secret anymore because look how corrupt they've gotten.
They've gotten so corrupt that they have agreed to secret interpretations of the laws, they have agreed to secret changes to the constitution, you know it's all being done in secret
by a finite number of judges on this court and a finite number of people in the administration and the agencies and the Department of Justice.
R.K.: Now you're talking about the FISA court, right?
R.K.: Now the FISA court has judges appointed by John Roberts the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court so he has got his hand in this in a big way.
W.B.: He should be overseeing it, I don't know if he is or not. If he is then he's a part of it, too.
R.K.: I would think that he has hand-picked these people. Don't you think that he has contributed to it and don't you think he backs them up?