We are Glenn Greenwald & Murtaza Hussain, who just revealed the Muslim-American leaders spied on by the NSA & FBI. Ask Us Anything.

Glenn,

Do you worry that the amount of information that has been released overwhelms the public? I read everything that is published and I find it overwhelming at times. When I talk to family and friends about the stories I often see their eyes glaze over.

Thank you.

Do you worry that the amount of information that has been released overwhelms the public? I read everything that is published and I find it overwhelming at times. When I talk to family and friends about the stories I often see their eyes glaze over

This is one reason I think we were right to space out the stories rather than just putting everything out there at once.

Aside from the fact that our source, Edward Snowden, insisted that we report the stories one by one, I think this method has proven to be the best for public consumption.

I've been amazed at how long the interest level in this story has been sustained, and how intense it has been all over the world, literally.

NOTE: The AMA is still going strong after 1 1/2 hours and is on the front page. Murtaza and I will take a break and come back in an hour or two and answer more questions, especially since people on the West Coast are now joining.

The Washington Post recently reported:

The Post reviewed roughly 160,000 intercepted e-mail and instant-message conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts.

At the 9-to-1 ratio of incidental collection in Snowden’s sample, the office’s figure would correspond to nearly 900,000 accounts, targeted or not, under surveillance.

The NSA has access to a lot of our personal information and launders that intelligence to the DEA, IRS, FBI, police departments etc.

Considering the US Government has a history of attacking dissidents like Martin Luther King Jr, communists and anarchists, do you believe that innocent people are in jail because of ideologically motivated NSA intelligence laundering?

Our leaders have no desire to allow Binney, Snowden, Drake and Tice to testify before Congress. The Supreme Court doesn't want to hear about NSA cases. The US Government does not seem to represent rule of law, democracy or freedom. How can we help the people being targeted by unconstitutional/illegal NSA surveillance if criminals are clinging to power?

Considering the US Government has a history of attacking dissidents like Martin Luther King Jr, communists and anarchists, do you believe that innocent people are in jail because of ideologically motivated NSA intelligence laundering?

Let me put it this way: while we do not have all the information about everything the NSA and related agencies have done, one of the big benefits of being able to publish what we do have is that it lets lawsuits be commenced, investigations proceed, and opens cracks in previously opaque walls of secrecy. Almost every one of our stories has led to other related revelations - it's like a ball of yarn: you have to keep tugging and eventually the whole thing unravels.

First off, thank you.

Secondly, you mentioned on twitter that your "naming names" story on targeted Muslim Americans is not the finale.

Are there other targeted domestic groups/organizations/communities/interests/etc. beyond the Muslim community that you plan to report on?

I suspect that many Americans, seeing Muslims as "other," or seeing only five names listed, won't give this story the attention it deserves.

Are there other targeted domestic groups/organizations/communities/interests/etc. beyond the Muslim community that you plan to report on?

I get in trouble every time I talk about our reporting before it's ready, but suffice to say: Muslims, while the prime target of post-9/11 abuses, are not the only ones targeted by them, and there is definitely more big reporting to come from the Snowden archive.

I suspect that many Americans, seeing Muslims as "other," or seeing only five names listed, won't give this story the attention it deserves.

I don't agree. That's certainly true of some, but I think we make a big mistake when we see our fellow citizens as ignorant, unenlightened, bigoted, etc. It's our responsibility to persuade people why they should care.

How do you feel about the fact that the moderators of /r/worldnews have a policy of filtering any links from The Intercept as "Opinion," even when the link is to an original news report?

How do you feel about the fact that the moderators of /r/worldnews have a policy of filtering any story from The Intercept as "Opinion"?

Reddit is practicing censorship, pure and simple.

From the comments I've seen from the responsible moderators, the people doing this are partisan Democrats who want to conceal these stories because they perceive that it reflects poorly on Obama.

The reporting we have done has won the Pulitzer, the Polk, and basically every other news reporting prize in the west.

Only on Reddit are our stories deemed something other than "news".

It's pitiful.

EDIT: To be clear, my understanding of how this all works is that Reddit itself isn't doing the censoring, but rather the moderators who have been empowered.

Glenn,

After the German publication made the story about the NSA's spying on Tor users and others, you made a tweet that implied the story was using documents not leaked by Snowden. Do you think there is another NSA leaker?

After the German publication made the story about the NSA's spying on Tor users and others, you made a tweet that implied the story was using documents not leaked by Snowden. Do you think there is another NSA leaker?

Yes, for multiple reasons, I do believe there is - though that had nothing to do with the Gellman story. Snowden docs were clearly the basis for that WashPost article.

At this point, do you think the NSA is "salvageable" or should this be a "shoot the rabid animal, burn the corpse, bury the body, salt the earth" type of situation, where we start over from scratch with different people, stronger oversight, etc.?

At this point, do you think the NSA is "salvageable" or should this be a "shoot the rabid animal, burn the corpse, bury the body, salt the earth" type of situation, where we start over from scratch with different people, stronger oversight, etc.?

Embedded in the agency is now this view that ALL communications both domestically and globally should be collected and stored: that it is all their domain. I don't see how you expunge such a deeply ingrained belief in their culture.

This is my first question on Reddit. I feel compelled to talk, since this is the best chance I'll likely have to get a reply. Firstly thank you Glenn and Murtaza, not just for this story but all of your fearless reporting, as well as your colleagues'. You've ignited a young mind to follow these stories, and similar stories about the overreach of power, so for that I thank you.

Living in the UK, I've been appalled and horrified at the lack of debate about this, as well as the govt.'s clear attack on free press. I hope you know that this, as well as the treatment of your partner, Glenn, and the reaction of our government, is not indicative of the people, for many of us are with you.

As for a question, do you think that we will see change? Are you hopeful that there will be the sort of reforms that advocates like yourselves have long been pushing for?

As for a question, do you think that we will see change? Are you hopeful that there will be the sort of reforms that advocates like yourselves have long been pushing for?

Over the last six weeks, I traveled to 10 countries where I did public speaking events on these stories. In each, large auditoriums were sold out well in advance, and media coverage was intense, because the interest level in this story - even a year after we began reporting - is still so high.

There has been a major, profound debate around the world, not just in the US, about a variety of key topics: the dangers of state surveillance, the value of individual privacy in the digital age, the menace posed by government secrecy, the actual role of the US (and Obama) in the world), the proper relationship between journalists and those who wield the greatest power.

There have been diplomatic relations between big countries altered, reform legislation proposed and passed, all sorts of new international regimes formed, massive pressure on US tech companies imposed, and a change in consciousness about a wide range of issues.

I can't predict what change will happen from all of this, but I know it will be significant.

Hi Glenn and Murtaza,

Right here on reddit you see the exact same "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric against muslims especially from the heroes of modern atheists and democrats such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, many people have lost the ability to empathize with moderate muslims, as a result I have seen a lot of comments after this story's release as being exactly what the NSA is supposed to be doing, or that they are unsurprised, how would you respond to these people?

Also, we have seen this kind of spying before in the 60's as part of COINTELPRO, but back then there was more public outrage and there was even a grand jury, why isn't there the same response now?

Lastly, I wanted to share this quote with you:

In an interview famed social theorist Roberto Unger (and Obama's former law professor) said the following:

"The sin of the public culture of the United States is the tendency to believe that the country discovered, at the time of its foundation, the definitive formula of a free society, and that the rest of humanity must either subscribe to this formula or continue to languish in poverty and despotism."

Thanks for increasing public awareness on privacy and US foreign policy.

Right here on reddit you see the exact same "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric against muslims especially from the heroes of modern atheists and libertarians such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, many people have lost the ability to empathize with moderate muslims, as a result I have seen a lot of comments after this story's release as being exactly what the NSA is supposed to be doing, or that they are unsurprised, how would you respond to these people?

Undoubtedly, some people have been trained to believe that as long as government abuses are confined to Muslims, they shouldn't and won't care.

But as the serious controversies over things like Guantanamo, torture, drones and surveillance prove, many people do care. As one of the subjects of our story, CAIR Exec Dir Nihad Awad pointed out, abuses that start off confined to one marginalized group ALWAYS spread far beyond that if people ignore it in the first instance.

Also, we have seen this kind of spying before in the 60's as part of COINTELPRO, but back then there was more public outrage and there was even a grand jury, why isn't there the same response now?

I think sometimes we remember COINTELPRO wrong. There were a huge number of Americans - probably most - who thought that anti-war protesters, civil rights leaders and the like SHOULD be monitored because they were threats. Just as was true of how we now regard Dan Ellsberg as a hero, it took many, many years for most Americans to realize how threatening and dangerous that Hoover-era surveillance was.

I think if you compare the global outrage over the last year to the NSA revelations to how people reacted to the COINTELPRO story, there is at least as much anger, if not more, now than there was then.

I think if you compare the global outrage over the last year to the NSA revelations to how people reacted to the COINTELPRO story, there is at least as much anger, if not more, now than there was then.

Sadly, the US government seems to believe that foreigners have absolutely no rights at all, and therefore are not concerned with any global reaction. Change will only come if people inside the US get angry.

Sadly, the US government seems to believe that foreigners have absolutely no rights at all, and therefore are not concerned with any global reaction

Many US journalists believe this, too. It disgusts me how many of them complain that some of the Snowden revelations went beyond reporting on the privacy of Americans - as though the privacy of non-Americans (also known as "95% of the planet") are irrelevant. They're jingoists and authoritarians who went into the wrong line of work.

Glenn and Murtaza,

In your article, you cite a "FISA recap" spreadsheet that lists 7,485 e-mail addresses as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Is it your understanding that those 7,485 e-mail addresses are the only ones monitored under FISA court orders during that period?

Also, have you seen any evidence in the Snowden documents that NSA has targeted the communications of US persons absent a FISA court order?

In your article, you cite a "FISA recap" spreadsheet that lists 7,485 e-mail addresses as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Is it your understanding that those 7,485 e-mail addresses are the only ones monitored under FISA court orders during that period?

We cannot say at all that these were the only emails monitored - either under FISA or some other way. There very well could be other lists we don't have.

Also, it's important to realize that if the NSA thought some of their targets were plainly illegally selected, it's highly unlikely they'd put it down on paper, let alone go to the FISA court with it.

Also, have you seen any evidence in the Snowden documents that NSA has targeted the communications of US persons absent a FISA court order?

What caused us to hold our story last week is that DOJ and other officials began whispering to another news agency that at least one of the people we named (Nihad Awad) was monitored without a FISA warrant.

What caused us to hold our story last week is that DOJ and other officials began whispering to another news agency that at least one of the people we named (Nihad Awad) was monitored without a FISA warrant.

So what? Surely this increases the urgency?

So what? Surely this increases the urgency?

Right - that's' why we investigated and then published 8 days later - not exactly what any rational person would characterize as a long delay.

The spreadsheet you are leaking from apparently contains 7485 email addresses. You have written many times in the past about the relationship between the criminal justice system and Muslim Americans post 9/11. How did you decide which five to focus on for this report, and how would you address concerns that the five are specifically picked by yourselves and may not be indicative of the sorts of people making up the rest of the list?

How did you decide which five to focus on for this report, and how would you address concerns that the five are specifically picked by yourselves and may not be indicative of the sorts of people making up the rest of the list?

Several points:

1) We were unable to identify the identity of most of the people on the list because it's very hard - or sometimes impossible - to trace someone's identity simply by looking at an email address.

2) It was important to us that we report only on those who were willing to be named. We did not want to drag people - especially private figures - into the light and name them as surveillance targets who were fearful of the ramifications for their lives.

3) We wanted to do very thorough reporting on the ones we were naming, so purposely chose a manageable number. The article was 8,000 words as it is. There is still more reporting to do.

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Is literally emailing the addresses on the list part of your process to identify the owner? Or would that create security concerns because 'legitimate' targets might realize they're under surveillance? [But even in that case, you could contact with a fake email address under a false pretense, right?]

Is literally emailing the addresses on the list part of your process to identify the owner? Or would that create security concerns because 'legitimate' targets might realize they're under surveillance?

I suppose we could email every email address on the list, but without knowing who those people are, it would mean we would be tipping off every single NSA target - no matter who they are or what they are doing - to the fact that their email accounts are being monitored.

Hi questions for both of you first and then one for Glenn,

What are feelings now regarding Wikileaks, 2 months after they revealed “country X” from the MYSTIC programme after your initial hesitation to publish the country in question.

Equally Glenn, you recently said you would never return to the UK after David Miranda was detained, I feel the public debate about all these revelations in the UK have not been as involved, mainly I feel due to the threatening nature of the governments intervention of press, do you think you would ever change your mind and engage in public debate in the UK?

Thanks

What are feelings now regarding Wikileaks, 2 months after they revealed “country X” from the MYSTIC programme after your initial hesitation to publish the country in question.

I've long been a vocal supporter of WikiLeaks and that hasn't changed because they disagreed with one of the many hard decisions we had to make over the last year. I'm glad they're out there pushing everyone - including us - to the direction of more transparency.

Equally Glenn, you recently said you would never return to the UK after David Miranda was detained, I feel the public debate about all these revelations in the UK have not been as involved, mainly I feel due to the threatening nature of the governments intervention of press, do you think you would ever change your mind and engage in public debate in the UK?

I never said I would never return there, only while the government's official position is that there is an active, pending criminal investigation against myself, my partner and my colleagues.

Can you tell us the exact reason they gave for censoring Afghanistan?

Can you tell us the exact reason they gave for censoring Afghanistan?

Without confirming that it was that country, we didn't decide to withhold that country because the NSA told us to. We decided to do it because of (a) our own knowledge and analysis of specific individuals we thought could be endangered and (b) the framework we agreed to with our source.

It was a hard and close call, but ultimately, everyone who worked on that story - including journalists and editors with a long history of adversarial relations with the US govt - agreed it was the right thing to do for now.

The idea that we take orders from the US Govt about what to publish - given everything we've published over their vehement objections and even threats - is simply absurd.

Mr. Greenwald, how aggressive do you feel the surveillance by the Feds is on you? Have you caught them in their efforts?

Mr. Greenwald, how aggressive do you feel the surveillance by the Feds is on you? Have you caught them in their efforts?

In response to the lawsuit brought by my partner against the UK Govt alleging that his detention under a terrorism law was illegal, they filed documents making conclusively clear that they were monitoring the electronic communications of myself, my partner, and/or my colleagues at the Guardian.

Good morning Mr Greenwald, I would like to thank you for bringing to light what the NSA has done to the citizenry of the US. I have three questions about the the spreadsheet Will the public be allowed to see the spreadsheet? Have you found any other names that were surprising even to you? Finally are there any other groups (antiwar activists, journalists or anybody of particular note that are not Muslim) on this spreadsheet?

Will the public be allowed to see the spreadsheet?

The problem is that many, many people do not want to be publicly identified as NSA targets. In the prior weeks, my email inbox has been full of people literally pleading not to be named if they're on the list. Especially for Muslims and other minority groups - but really for everyone - there is a huge stigma that can come from being named that can harm the person's reputation, career prospects, relations in their community and the like if they are publicly identified as targets, because so many people assuming they must be Bad People if the NSA watched them.

So I would never just dump a list of emails of NSA targets and thus violate the privacy and harm the reputation of huge numbers of individuals who (a) I don't know the identity of and (b) may not want to be named.

All five of the people we named here consented to their inclusion in the story.

Have you found any other names that were surprising even to you?

I was surprised by all five names we identified. I can't believe that a FISA court or multiple layers of DOJ would, for instance, approve the email monitoring of the Exec Dir of the largest Muslim American civil rights organization in the country which, if anything, is notorious for being too moderate and too cooperative with the US Govt.

Finally are there any other groups (antiwar activists, journalists or anybody of particular note that are not Muslim) on this spreadsheet?

I can't talk about our reporting until it's ready, but there are more stories coming.

I can't believe that a FISA court or multiple layers of DOJ would, for instance, approve the email monitoring of the Exec Dir of the largest Muslim American civil rights organization in the country which, if anything, is notorious for being too moderate and too cooperative with the US Govt.

Really? Your own story states the FISA court that in the 35 years it has existed, the FISA court has only said 'no' 12 times. Out of 35,000 requests. How can anyone have faith in a "court" that has such predictable outcomes?

Really? Your own story states the FISA court that in the 35 years it has existed, the FISA court has only said 'no' 12 times. Out of 35,000 requests. How can anyone have faith in a "court" that has such predictable outcomes?

I'm well aware of that and have written for years about the absolute joke called "the FISA Court" and the related idea that there is any meaningful oversight at all on NSA and other agencies.

Still: it's one thing to rationally know that there is widespread abuse, but another thing to see the specific individuals who are victimized. I think it's important not to become so jaded and cynical that one loses one's sense of shock and outrage.

Excellent story today, while I've only had a chance so far to read the summary I intend to read the full article in the next hour :D

My question is this: Cryptome has recently made the astonishing claim that somebody else with access to the Snowden archive intends to dump the entire thing raw. Presumably this points towards one of the sources Snowden used for his "dead man's switch" essentially breaking their agreement with him and publishing anyway. Does this claim concern you, or is it likely a hoax?

Cryptome has recently made the astonishing claim that somebody else with access to the Snowden archive intends to dump the entire thing raw.

They've subsequently clarified that they were only expressing a hope - not anything based on any knowledge whatsoever of anything relevant. I would be very, very, very, very shocked if anything like that happened.

If a release like that were to hypothetically occur, what do you imagine the immediate fallout might look like based on all of your recent experience butting heads with the national security state?

If a release like that were to hypothetically occur, what do you imagine the immediate fallout might look like based on all of your recent experience butting heads with the national security state?

I think it would enable the NSA, the DOJ and all their various defenders and apologists in the media to shift attention away from the substance of the revelations (what the NSA is doing to our privacy) onto questions about why Snowden and the journalists with whom he worked were so "reckless".